Posted on 03/21/2006 11:37:40 PM PST by Nasty McPhilthy
"So they weren't are powerful enough to insulate themselves against such action? Thanks for admitting your earlier assertion was in error."
So the ownership of Arthur Anderson was brought to justice, while the shareholders of Enron suffered no consequence other than the loss of their original collective investment. It's our legal system that favors corporatism, rather than the laws of supply-and-demand.
"How? You buy stock in a bad corporation, you lose your money."
And that's it. It's speculative in nature, rather than entrepreneurial. In essence, there is no real civic consequence for supporting unethical corporations. It gives preferential treatment to corporations over other forms of business. Thus the organic and beneficial laws of supply-and-demand are undone by governmental fiat.
You spoke of Arthur Anderson's "shareholders." Arthur Anderson did not have shareholders.
Nope. I understand the idea behind incorporation. It's to shield shareholders against consequence for illegal or unethical practices committed for their benefit by corporate executives. Shareholders enjoy the benefits of capital enterprise without a lick of personal responsibility. The only way corporatism could possibly be more leftist is if everyone were given shares at birth.
Please explain all the lawsuits against tobacco companies, asbestos companies and lead paint companies.
So if you ask me for twenty bucks and then go and buy a rock of crack, I should be arrested for pushing?
"You spoke of Arthur Anderson's "shareholders." Arthur Anderson did not have shareholders."
My bad. Good catch. Doesn't really prove or disprove my premise either way. I personally don't believe corporatism is superior to the entrepreneurship/business-loan model on the basis of the basic laws of supply-and-demand. It succeeds only because it is given preferential treatment under the law.
Isn't that the truth. This latest iteration of collectivism seems to have supplanted global socialism as their favorite pejorative and is now the "creative" invective of choice.
If that were the case, you would be a sole-proprietor, and we would both be subject to prosecution. If you were part-owner in a corporation, you would not be. Hence, you would be granted preferential treatment under the law (inherently unconstitutional).
Socialist response to corporatist activities. Cause-and-effect. The size and scope of government increases in response to the unethical action of corporations.
The owners (shareholders) in the corporations had no reason to act in an ethical manner, nor fear any appreciable legal consequence for the numerous deaths caused. A sole-proprietor engaged in this type of illegal profiteering would likely have been jailed.
Unequal treatment under the law.
Actors in a truly capitalistic system are subject to both criminal and civic penalty under the law. Corporatism eliminates personal responsibility from the system.
I'm talking about individual lawsuits. Are you saying the government can somehow harm a corporation? You're contradicting your earlier assertion: Corporations are powerful enough to insulate themselves against such action.
The owners (shareholders) in the corporations had no reason to act in an ethical manner
Do I need to explain that shareholders don't act, corporate officers and employees act.
A sole-proprietor engaged in this type of illegal profiteering would likely have been jailed.
You must have skipped a step. What illegal profiteering?
"What illegal profiteering?"
Profit gained by breaking the law.
Illegal profiteering.
Still think you skipped a step. What laws did tobacco companies, asbestos companies and lead paint companies break?
That is the basis for all business law. Those laws are being undermined by corporate lobbying efforts whose main goal is to get legislation passed and/or repealed that benefits the corporate entity rather than our society as a whole (and the individuals that comprise it). In effect, we are increasingly becoming a socialist corporate oligarchy rather than a Representative Republic. Socialism and corporatism grow in direct response to one another. If shareholders were held responsible under the law in the same manner other business owners were, I believe it would actually help curb the growth of (and possibly even reverse) socialism in our country.
That's the whole basis and reason for my position. I'm an unabashed capitalist, and a freedom-loving American watching personal freedom and individualism go right down the tubes. I'm doing my part to try and prevent that slide.
LOL!
It's illegal to willfully administer poison to someone else without their knowledge. From the time they became aware of the lethality of their products, up until they gave explicit warning of it to potential consumers, they were engaging in illegal behavior for profit. Criminal intent rather than negligence.
Proprietors are held legally responsible for criminal actions of employees on the job, if either consent or complicity can be demonstrated. They're held liable for civic penalties beyond their ownership interest in the company if someone is injured by the negligence of an employee with or without their knowledge or consent. Action is not necessary for a proprietor or parter to be prosecuted. Why should it be different for the owners of a corporation? Once again, preferential treatment under the law. Should be unconstitutional.
If you have proof of that several trial lawyers would like to talk to you. And if you did have proof, you'd like to hold a shareholder like me responsible? I hope you don't hold any stock in your 401K.
It's called murder by asassination. There's plenty of evidence suggesting tobacco companies knew full well the lethality of their products before they ever started consumer product-label warnings or publicly admitted the fact. They're getting away with it because of corporatism. They sold death to the public, and laughed all the way to the bank.
Not knowing that you could be killing someone, and hiding it after you're made full-aware are two completely different things. The former is libelous, the latter is criminal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.