Corporate Death Penalty - For or Against

Discussion in 'Politics' started by SpidermanTuba, May 5, 2010.

?

Corporate Death Penalty

  1. For

    3 vote(s)
    15.0%
  2. Against

    17 vote(s)
    85.0%
  1. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258
    Should a corporation that has committed a grave offense be confiscated from its shareholders and sold off by the government?
     
  2. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    Why not? The corporate entity is a fiction that exists only on paper sanctioned and recognized by the State. If they're going to have individual rights they should also have individual responsibilities - and penalties.

    Of course the Enrons and Countrywides of the world tend to kill themselves long before the State could convict them and take them over.
     
  3. Meister
    Offline

    Meister VIP Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    25,900
    Thanks Received:
    8,099
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Conservative part of the Northwest
    Ratings:
    +8,100
    I guess if you want to screw the shareholders, that would be one way of doing it.
    It would give a whole new meaning to 401K's and IRA's, and the trust in 401K's and IRA's. Could have a grave impact on the stock market, and the money in the market. But, hey.....more power to our government....I know we all trust them to do the right thing.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,957
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,962
    I would say my opinion on this, but way too broad of a question to be determined either way. However, from what I'm hearing, not liking too much.
     
  5. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258
    It also will save the people from a lot of regulating. A corporation is much more likely to self regulate if its possible they could be killed for fucking the people.
     
  6. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258
    The shareholders accepted liability up to the amount they paid for the shares when they bought them.

    So are you also against the DP for individuals or do you think corporations should have special rights?
     
  7. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    The corporations that engage in the kind of behaviors that would warrant "death" for the entity are going to screw their shareholders anyway. I'm not sure about the government seizing assets for sale - by that point there would be nothing left. But revoking a corporate charter for egregious wrongdoing and putting any remaining assets into receivership? Why not?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,957
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,962
    1.) What would be considered a "grave offense?"

    2.) Who would regulate this? The SEC?

    3.) Sold off to whom?

    4.) Why blame the shareholders (especially if it's a large group of people) for the actions of a few when they have little to no hand in a corporation making a grave offense.

    5.) Is the Federal Government going to override state charters? Including any sort of contracts?

    Looking at just this plainly, I would never support such a thing.
     
  9. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    I disagree on the regulating. It would mean an entire new criminal code specifically designed for corporations. Every offense would have to be clearly defined. For example, what in a corporate sense would actually constitute "treason"?

    I doubt it can or will be done, but in theory revocation of the corporate charter (which equals corporate death) for the worst offenses isn't a bad idea. Which leaves it to the States, since corporations are only formed at the State level. Rough, broad, lots of details to work out, but an interesting idea.
     
  10. Meister
    Offline

    Meister VIP Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    25,900
    Thanks Received:
    8,099
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Conservative part of the Northwest
    Ratings:
    +8,100
    I don't think that corporations should have special rights.......But I'm not for a government seizing control of a business. I'm not for big government like you are, obviously spider.
    I am for regulations that DO prevent a "grave offense". I do know that the government seems to want to over regulate, there lies the problem....not to you, I do understand that, but to me and most Americans.
    The shareholders do take risk and most do know that, but to wake up one day and read in the WSJ that the government seized the assets of a corporation.....give me a break. There solutions to problems without the government seizing control.
     

Share This Page