A person's responsibility for their actions is not a legal issue???
No.
Topic: Are corporations people? - page 3. (Read 3996 times)
No.
You mix up limited liability and the legal system.
They are orthogonal issues.
They are orthogonal issues.
A person's responsibility for their actions is not a legal issue???
Yes, Canada is a person.
You mix up limited liability and the legal system.
They are orthogonal issues.
They are orthogonal issues.
The problem is limited liability. If people make decisions they should be held responsible for them on an individual basis. Saying a "corporation" did this or that is nonsense. Individuals made the decisions but our corrupt system doesn't see it that way partly because lawyers can extract much more money from a corporation than one person.
People not being fully responsible for their actions breeds the exact results we see.
Nothing to do with capitalism. It's a corrupt legal system. Why is the legal system corrupt? Because it can be. Because the government has a monopoly on the provision of law and order. You need free market competition in law and order to solve the problem.
People not being fully responsible for their actions breeds the exact results we see.
Nothing to do with capitalism. It's a corrupt legal system. Why is the legal system corrupt? Because it can be. Because the government has a monopoly on the provision of law and order. You need free market competition in law and order to solve the problem.
if you invest in the stockmarket, the shareholders need to squeeze every penny out of their shares.. which means companies are expected to do whatever is best for them, even if it really fucks over the rest of the population.
Yes, companies act in their own interest, so do I and so should you.
Non-broken capitalism encourages proper allocation of capital. In a non-broken system that is not based on debt it usually benefits everyone.
But hey I'm just some random retard on some random internet trollboard, read up, become an entrepreneur, see for yourself.
isn't the problem that.. if we do have non-broken capitalism, that means government has to regulate it more? in that case, libertarians would be up in arms.
if you invest in the stockmarket, the shareholders need to squeeze every penny out of their shares.. which means companies are expected to do whatever is best for them, even if it really fucks over the rest of the population.
Yes, companies act in their own interest, so do I and so should you.
Non-broken capitalism encourages proper allocation of capital. In a non-broken system that is not based on debt it usually benefits everyone.
But hey I'm just some random retard on some random internet trollboard, read up, become an entrepreneur, see for yourself.
FTFY.. capitalism at its best.
Investors and shareholders are not these "evil people that somehow live separate from society and profit at its expense and that I wish I'd be a part of".
if you invest in the stockmarket, the shareholders need to squeeze every penny out of their shares.. which means companies are expected to do whatever is best for them, even if it really fucks over the rest of the population.
FTFY.. capitalism at its best.
Investors and shareholders are not these "evil people that somehow live separate from society and profit at its expense and that I wish I'd be a part of".
"Corporations" can only survive if they create value for its investors and shareholders (ie: selling attractive goods and services). Corporations are a good thing - they resulted in the creation of the computers we're typing on, the power that we use to run the computer, and maybe even the hardware that was used to mine the first bitcoins.
FTFY.. capitalism at its best.
"Corporations" can only survive if they create value for society (ie: selling attractive goods and services). Corporations are a good thing - they resulted in the creation of the computers we're typing on, the power that we use to run the computer, and maybe even the hardware that was used to mine the first bitcoins.
know they are not people. if anything the laws should be stacked up against them and out their favor. They break the most laws and cause the most harm to mankind. I'm glad you asked because I wanted to get that out more then I realized haaha thanks.
No they aren't people.
They are just entities build to protect and separate the owners and runners from actions.
They are just entities build to protect and separate the owners and runners from actions.
the term corporation is just a shelter for actual people to do bad things and get away with it. it's a state-backed enterprise, as evidenced by government. my republican friend says that corporations do share a lot of similarities with people. i guess they are really really powerful "people" who only pay punitive damages for all the insufferable things they do.
see citizens united: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
see citizens united: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
Where do you think the "company" word comes from ? :-)
They're made up of people, yes, but the legal fiction surrounding corporations is silly and something only a to-be corporation would dream up and have enough power to push the state to approve of it 
Without the state to pretend that a corporation exists, there can be no corporations; they're just people running a business with the same risks and rules as everyone else.
Without the state to pretend that a corporation exists, there can be no corporations; they're just people running a business with the same risks and rules as everyone else.
So what do you people think? Most here are libertarians, and I'm curious to see what the libertarian view on a corporation is.. i mean, on one hand you could be laissez faire and let the market forces take effect, but at the same time, you know that corporations and politicians are a big burden to society.
Jump to: