Slashdot Mirror
The Corporate Death Penalty
There's an interesting column on SiliconValley.com from Dan Gillmor (IMHO, one of the few smart columnists out there) about a probably-unimplementable idea: Killing illegal companies. The notion appeals to me though -- but even more, the idea of bad companies wearing electronic tracking bracelets amuses me. *grin*
I find it humorous that *any* concern to the people who would be harmed in a corporate death penalty, or in any corporate fine. No such considerations are ever given to *human* criminals who are punished. How often do you hear a judge say something like "I know you committed this crime, and you've admitted it, and normally I'd sentence you to life imprisonment for it, but since you have a wife and family who are depending upon you for financial support, and parents and siblings who would be emotionally harmed by your incareration, I'm going to commute you sentence to 60 days of probation"?
I'm a NAIC club member and stock investor. I'm also an employee. *Both* of these attributes have a certain amount of risk involved- the company I am working for may go out of buisness, or may simply downsize me, with little or no warning. The stocks I buy may declare bankruptcy, or plummet in price so far that the stocks may as well be worthless. You can't avoid risk, so you manage it. You don't put all your money into one stock, you diversify. That way if one company bombs, it doesn't take your entire portfolio with it. You keep you skills current, live in a city with many job opportunities, and keep technical contacts up, so when you loose your current job you can get another one. Risk is a fact of life.
Nice Troll.
Since you are so fond of Jefferson, I have a quote for you.
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices."
- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813
Jesus, I can't believe the crazy "logic" that has led people to consider something like a corporate death penalty. Corporations are imaginary--they are a legal fiction. I have never seen a corporation, nor have you. The only reality is people. Trying to impose a "death penalty" on something that is no more than words on a piece of paper is just plain silly.
As for the argument that corporations are created by the State, and are thus subject to destruction by the state (kind of like Bill Cosby's stand-up routine where he says to his kid, "I brought you into this world, boy, and I can take you out of it."), that's also just plain wrong. Just because the State has to approve the creation of a corporation does not mean the State created it--that's the same as claiming the State creates all houses because it has to grant building permits.
If you were to "kill" corporation X, what happens to its assets? What happens to your grandmother who lives off a pension that is heavily in X's stocks and bonds? Just liquidating a company gives you its book value, which is generally nowhere near its market capitalization... What happens to the employees?
Corporations, in many ways, are similar to democracies, except the shareholders are the citizens. Even though we have a democracy, we don't punish citizens for the acts of the government they may or may not have voted for (the punishment of poor governance is generally enough). Likewise, we shouldn't punish shareholders for the actions of the corporate executive.
A much simpler and more reasonable solution is to make executives liable for any violations of criminal law committed by their company. The legal entity of the corporation should still offer protection against civil liability (e.g., getting sued for not honoring warranties, etc.), but not against criminal prosecution (suit for manslaughter for knowingly selling excessively dangerous products without proper warning to consumers).
Yes, I think it would be a good idea to decorperate many of our current corperations for various reasons. OTOH, I feal that people should have the right to organize and carry out activities without the fear of the governemnt telling them to go home because they are unfassionable this year. It's importent to remember that this revoking a charter was likely a creation of post-feudal europe, i.e. all the power was centralized arround the king.
Luckily, there is a simple comprmize which allows both the freedom to carry out activities without governement intervention and allows the people to restrict the actions of dangerous companies/.orginisations. Specifically, deny corperations limited liability protections for their stock holders (and fine the shit out of people for doing nasty stuff).
Example: First, Phillip Morris would get sued into bankrupsy and beyond. Second, the debt would get passed onto the people who have held stock in Phillip Morris at the time of the abuses. Third, once a few very rich people lost their houses no one would ever invest in a company they suspected of being dishonest, harming the enviroment, killing people, etc. It would also mean that companies would need to "sell" their "harmless nature" to their investors.
Now, there are essentual companies (like power) which would become impossible under this scheme. The solution would be to allow these essentual companies to give up 50% control to publically ellected officials in exchange for limited liability protection for stock holders. This would be a really good deal for the companies since these ellected officials would typically belong to diffrent parties and thus disagree, but it would still give the public the necissary ammount of control over the company.
(BTW nice quote)
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
There is precedent for doing this.
corpwatch.org has a well-researched article by Russell Mokhiber discussing cases going back more than a century of states revoking the corporate charter of corporations found guilty of crimes. The state granted the charter in the first place, giving "birth" to that corporation, and what the state gave it can take.
Therefore, it makes logical sense that something that is created entirely by the State can be killed by the State (lets thank god 1984 isn't here yet, when the State starts making babies, the same logic will apply =( ).
Note that a corporate death penalty can be taken to mean a couple of different things. For example, if Microsoft lost its case and was sentanced to death, does that mean:
A similar but unrelated question is "when should the corporate veil be pierced for investors in a corporation that commits criminal acts?" Shouldn't the investors/shareholders - who are the OWNERS be held responsible for the actions of the organization they are a part of? People would THINK a lot more on Wall Street if they were, and perhaps the mindless and ruthless actions of Transnational Corporations would be help back somewhat if the investors knew they would be liable (criminally or civily) for them...
Hmm.. another question, should/could Firestone or Ford be charged with murder? Manslaughter? If proven that they had knowledge of the fatal consequences of their actions and as a corporation did nothing about it - perhaps. Also... cigarette companies? Can they be charged with murder, since they're aware as a company that they are more or less responsible for thousands of deaths each year? Makes me wonder if Florida is a death penalty state...
So yeah, they should be treated exactly as people. =)
------------
"...and Maddest of all, to see Life as it Is, and not as it Should Be."
Better yet, lets start having government reviews of the companies that are already running, so they can decide which ones can stay running. Then, we can set up a "think tank" of government appointed citizens to decide which companies can start up. Of course, this council will need to full disclosure from the company, and maybe even a stake of its shares. Then, if a company does something politically incorrect, the government will put them out of business so we wont have to make the bad decision of buying their inferior product. This council (formerly the Council on Commercial Affairs, now known as the Ministry of Commerce, or "MiniCom" in newspeak) could then even decide which product in a market is the best for us! No more need for endorsements or unfair competition! This council will even anticipate our need for new products, and will personaly reward the innovators with a bonus on top of the MiniCom approved salary level. All workplace discrimination will _COMPLETELY_ disappear, as our unions will decide who is employed where, and at what level. As the evil corporate nightmare we have today disappears before our eyes, we will shower our thanks upon the wide politicians who boldly led us into this brave new world. Socialism - Why regulate industry when you can own it! Facism - Why own industry when you can control it! Communism - Why own industry when you can own the people! Vote Libertarian and vote for freedom
------
I have not yet begun to procrastinate!
Why would you want to punish the corporation instead of the executives? It's just an imaginary thing anyway.
I'm sure the executives at Avant! would have rather had the corporation killed than having to pay $27 million dollars out of thier own pockets.
That's why you form a corporation in the first place. The primary purpose of a corporation is not to IPO. It's to tranfer liability from you personally to this imaginary fixture.
Trolls throughout history:
Trolls throughout history:
Jonathan Swift
That Corporations, and therefore all companies have 'legal rights' in much the same way a living breathing person does. A corportation can declare bankruptcy, regardless of the fact that it's CEO and board took the money and ran. A coporation can also earn income and pay taxes (when it doesn't find a way to wriggle out of them via all the business-targeted loopholes in the tax code.)
The real crime here is that while a corporation or a company is realy a posession even if it is owned by hundreds or thousands of people, it serves as a protective sheild for real criminal behavior.
It is said that a society grows more corrupt the more laws it has. Well, rather than imposing new laws that punish a corporation or its members for wrongdoing, I propose instead removing laws and tax code that grant corporations 'person status'. Remove the laws and tax code that allow a corporation to profit instead of its owners. Remove everything that grants rights to a corporation, and I think you'll start to see a little better accountability.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
...it's called revoking a corporation's charter, and up till a hundred years ago was done when a corporation was found to be no longer serving the public good. There is currently a petition underway to revoke Phillip Morris' charter.
t ml
For more on this, see the AdBuster's web site:
http://adbusters.org/campaigns/corporate/tour/1.h
--
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
- Nietzsche