Corporations having rights as people

[rahmota]

This is for the legal basis of giving corporations legal standing the same as an individual person in the courts system and the laws of america. For it against it, explain it deny it. Just talk about it.

I need to go do some double checking if I get the time to make sure I'm not talking out of my butt on this one though so you start without me.

[Seshat]

I think businesses should be legal entities of their own, but on a limited basis. If you don't make a business an independent legal entity, then some poor human sod gets to be the legal entity that answers for all the faults of the corporation, and maybe gets totally screwed. And some businesses are just too large for one person to honestly answer for.

On the other hand, if businesses are purely legal entities of their own and noone is at all answerable, you get con artists and sociopaths hiding behind the shield of a corporate entity to play their games and screw people over.

I believe some sort of middle path is needed, where there are people (genuine flesh-people) with both the authority and responsibility for the business' actions, but where if everything goes completely wrong in some way that the flesh-person couldn't have prevented, they don't get to be messed up hideously.

(Now, if they could suffer equally with their customers, staff, suppliers and shareholders - that I'd go for. But not making them as individuals wholly responsible for all the debts. That's not fair.)

[rahmota]

Hmm I can see what you're talking about seshat but I was thinking along the military lines of a commanding officer is responsible for all actions taken under his command. So basically the CEO is responsible and in charge and in command of the company so he is responsible for all actions taken in the name of the company.

This of course would require the CEO to be a leader who can not only take charge and be responsible and inquisitive into what their own company is doing but also be able to motivate the people under their command to do the same all the way down to the bottom most janitor out in podunksville. Each individual member of the unit (er company) is responsible and a key component in the chain of success or failure for the company but the person who signs on the bottom line would be the CEO.

Also this would of course limit the size of companies. Not a bad thing in my opinion. Megacorporations are difficult to keep track of whos doing what and a lot of bad thigns can happen. Not to mention lack of competition and monpolization of markets.

[Seshat]

Something my husband realised and pointed out to me: the current ways large corporations are set up and managed is designed to enable a company to continue to function despite significant numbers of their staff being essentially incompetent.

This is an interesting phenomenon, and I can feel my brain trying to wrap around this fact, what I know of military recruiting, and the issue of responsibility. I'll make another post once I've got something to say about it. There's a link here.

Part of it has to do with the fact that when I was talking to military recruiters, it was obvious they were looking for the most competent people they could find. Whereas with civilian companies, I've seen many cases where 'good enough' or 'cheap' was more desirable.

[rahmota]

yeah the military tries to get the most competent people they can that way they dont have to spend time bringing them up to the basics of which foot is left and which foot is right or which end of the rifle to hold.

Meanwhile corporate america has the attitude of as long as they arnt costing us money and they are a warm body they are a good enough fit. Which unfortunately leads to quite a few rather unpleasant circumstances in the struggle between consumer and company.