51–60 of 74 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes the system is broken
What is the broken part? There is a difference between investment and donation, should investors be forced to invest in ventures which don't explicitly promise them financial return on the investment?
The second law of thermodynamics is always at fault
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If companies and persons are legally equivalent, I'm not sure why this is so perverse to you. There are many people in the world who do not have "purpose", their personal philosophy is that they need/want to go out and "make a profit" so that they can survive. Are they perverse? A company isn't perfectly equivalent to a person, but does exist as a tool so people can accomplish goals. If two people have no calling, ha…
I'll believe that companies are the legal equivalent to persons when Texas executes one of them.
Can you find a company that committed capitol murder? Or are they supposed to just execute one to test your theory, even if they're not guilty?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably there's a business loan with a fixed contract and terms. That's a very different situation than an open ended commitment to maximally enrich shareholders... Pay your bills and the lender has nothing to say about how you run the business. Don't pay your bills, and the contract (which everyone signed) says what happens.
Simultaneously achieving two goals (supporting the local seafood industry and making a profit) is much more difficult than achieving a single goal - making a profit, so the likelihood of failure is high.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the broken part? There is a difference between investment and donation, should investors be forced to invest in ventures which don't explicitly promise them financial return on the investment?
> What is the broken part? "most investors want to invest in companies whose explicit purpose is making money for the investors". Rational investors should favor companies whose explicit purpose at least resembles a value proposition, which "PROFIT$!" does not.
Call me crazy, but the idea that a company can be formed with no purpose other than to make a profit strikes me as somewhat perverse and malign. All companies should exist for a specific purpose, and when that is achieved (or no longer needed, or no longer possible), they should be wound up.
But if you're pivoting it seems like a waste to wind up the company and restart it with the same people and resources. A company is just a legal name with legal powers attached to it. Why add purpose to that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll believe that companies are the legal equivalent to persons when Texas executes one of them.
If they aren't the legal equivalent of persons, then they can't perform necessary activities like entering into contracts. Can you find a company that committed capitol murder? Or are they supposed to just execute one to test your theory, even if they're not guilty?
That's not true. Yes, corporate personhood exists to make things like forming a contract with or suing a corporation possible without a whole bunch of extra laws. But corporate personhood is not declaring corporations totally equivalent to natural persons. Corporations, for example, cannot vote or get married and probably can't adopt kids in any state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they aren't the legal equivalent of persons, then they can't perform necessary activities like entering into contracts. Can you find a company that committed capitol murder? Or are they supposed to just execute one to test your theory, even if they're not guilty?
>If they aren't the legal equivalent of persons, then they can't perform necessary activities like entering into contracts. That's not true. Yes, corporate personhood exists to make things like forming a contract with or suing a corporation possible without a whole bunch of extra laws. But corporate personhood is not declaring corporations totally equivalent to natural persons. Corporations, for example, cannot vote…
The trouble, I think, is that some people want to keep corporations, but to somehow keep a leash on them so that they're only weaponized against their enemies. If you truly hated corporate personhood, instead, you might start talking about how corporations shouldn't be allowed in any circumstances. You can't keep a leash on them. They're effectively immortal, enormously rich beyond even billionaires, and have agendas. Like, I'm not exaggerating... they have agendas, and can play a long game. You'll never politically neutralize them as long as they exist, and unneutralized they will just continue to chip away until they've got their legal personhood back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the broken part? There is a difference between investment and donation, should investors be forced to invest in ventures which don't explicitly promise them financial return on the investment?
> What is the broken part? "most investors want to invest in companies whose explicit purpose is making money for the investors". Rational investors should favor companies whose explicit purpose at least resembles a value proposition, which "PROFIT$!" does not.
Call me crazy, but the idea that a company can be formed with no purpose other than to make a profit strikes me as somewhat perverse and malign. All companies should exist for a specific purpose, and when that is achieved (or no longer needed, or no longer possible), they should be wound up.
Alan Kay mentioned this recently at a UCLA talk [1] in February. It's known as the "The Friedman doctrine" after the American economist Milton Friedman. A) Milton Friedman: Shareholder profits > All. "...the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. This shareholder primacy approach views shareholders as the economic engine of the organization and the only group to which the firm is socially respo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If they aren't the legal equivalent of persons, then they can't perform necessary activities like entering into contracts. That's not true. Yes, corporate personhood exists to make things like forming a contract with or suing a corporation possible without a whole bunch of extra laws. But corporate personhood is not declaring corporations totally equivalent to natural persons. Corporations, for example, cannot vote…
Not all natural persons can vote. Despite what Trump says, green card holders are disallowed such. The trouble, I think, is that some people want to keep corporations, but to somehow keep a leash on them so that they're only weaponized against their enemies. If you truly hated corporate personhood, instead, you might start talking about how corporations shouldn't be allowed in any circumstances. You can't keep a leas…