|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Corporate Personhood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Any corporation is made up of people. People on top of people on top of other people. There are plenty of real people to sue in a corporation without pretending the corporation is a person of its own. Well apart from the fact that the corporation probably has more money, there is the problem that responsibility in a corporation is diffuse. Suppose you buy a product that malfunctions and mains you, I'll wait here while you do that ... Whom do you sue? The guys who put it together? But they were just following the manual saying how to put it together. The guy who wrote the manual? Got his information from the designer of the product. The designer? Died two years ago in a car crash. The CEO? Joined the company after you bought the product. The guy who was CEO when the product was designed? Knows nothing at all about engineering, but repeatedly told his employees that maiming people was bad and should be avoided. And so forth. There may not even be one particular person who is verifiably to blame, but if there is it's going to be darn difficult to (a) find him (b) prove it. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Just make the head boss legally responsible by default, regardless of when he came on or how much hand he had in the making of the product, dumping of the toxic waste, etc. It then falls on him to prove that someone else is more responsible than he is. Well typically that's not going to be very difficult. What's Plan B? It's just much easier to hold the corporation responsible. Is it important to find scapegoats, or is it better that the injured party should be able to get compensation without engaging the services of Hercule Poirot?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Sue that other person instead. Well apart from the difficulty of locating them, what if they don't have any assets?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Who said there would be no legal existence? Why must legal existence entail legal personhood? Well, this "legal personhood" is the way we've found to give them legal existence and responsibilities and potential culpability. If you'd like some other way to do exactly the same thing, then that would be a distinction without a difference. If you'd like them not to be held legally responsible, then I think that that's a bad idea. But I don't think that that's what you're getting at. It should be pointed out that the legal personality of corporations does not prevent individuals within the corporation from being brought to book. Ask Ken Lay if you don't believe me. But what it does mean is that there is always something you can bring to book. And this is, I think, good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And that's a realistic problem. But I can see a system that works around such problems. For example, the head boss could be ultimately responsible by default, and so is always the party who gets sued; leaving it up to him to sue someone else he thinks is responsible. But then what if the boss isn't remotely responsible, but the total assets of the person who is consists of a half-eaten Kit-Kat and a spoon? Shouldn't our justice system produce some sort of semblance of justice?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I think the owners/operators of these large companies will be more likely to evaluate their decisions and take necessary precautions to prevent damages from their companies' actions if they are personally responsible for those damages rather than hiding behind their faceless organizations. But, as I pointed out, the notion that the corporation is responsible doesn't pre-empt the notion that the management are also personally responsible. What we have is a situation where at the very least the corporation is responsible for things that it does wrong. This doesn't prevent us from holding individuals within the corporation responsible as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
For example a copyright in a work for hire held a corporations has a longer duration that would the copyright in the same work held by an author who is a natural person. This is both true and odd; but on the other hand there is (AFAIK) nothing that says that an author can't establish a corporation, solely owned by him, which owns his works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This was the purpose of my proposal that the chief boss always be the one who is, by default, the party sued. In practice, wouldn't the result of this be that a CEO would always have written into his contract that the corporation will pay for his defense and reimburse him for any damages he's found liable for?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I consider ownership above management. The owners would be responsible by default. Yes, well, that's not always going to be practical. In the case of the Bhophal disaster, for example, the factory was owned by Union Carbide. Union Carbide is wholly owned by Dow Chemical. The volume of Dow Chemical shares is 8.2 million. I'm not sure how many of those are held by small investors, but you might end up having to build a courtroom the size of the Titanic. However, when Dow Chemical, the corporation, is sued, the money they pay out negatively impacts the dividends and share price of their shares, thus making the investors poorer in exact proportion to the number of shares they hold. Is this not satisfactory? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I think speech is considered speech, and I don't understand how you restrict the ability of a corporation to hire certain kinds of speech on its behalf without infringing on the rights of a person who works for the corporation to hire certain kinds of speech. Using whose money? If it's his own, then he's not doing it qua employee of the corporation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well, but that's the problem - money is fungible. Money spent by the corporation for political campaigns can just be money given to employees with a "hint" about which campaigns they should donate it to. But what if they decide to spend it on ice-cream instead?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Not only is it totally foreign to the idea's established within the Constitution to conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the states ... The good people of Washington D.C. would like a word with you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024