Corporate Death Penalty - For or Against

[Yurt]

against

as goldcatt stated, the corporation is a fictional entity...it is run by people, and lately has been given certain first amendment protections. but killing it? why? killing the corporation alone doesn't stop the people who committed the illegal acts. think of shell corporations. if you kill the shell, it does nothing to the people. killing corporations will not stop the people who run them.

you need to go after the people, not a piece of paper

Problem is if you expand individual liability, you really are killing the corporation in general by compromising the limited liability aspect of the entity - which is one of the main benefits of incorporating in the first place. I'm not anti-corporation, far from it. They serve an important purpose. But what's the best way to hold them accountable for wrongdoing without weakening the ones who play by the rules?

you already have PCV....

 

[goldcatt]

against

as goldcatt stated, the corporation is a fictional entity...it is run by people, and lately has been given certain first amendment protections. but killing it? why? killing the corporation alone doesn't stop the people who committed the illegal acts. think of shell corporations. if you kill the shell, it does nothing to the people. killing corporations will not stop the people who run them.

you need to go after the people, not a piece of paper

Problem is if you expand individual liability, you really are killing the corporation in general by compromising the limited liability aspect of the entity - which is one of the main benefits of incorporating in the first place. I'm not anti-corporation, far from it. They serve an important purpose. But what's the best way to hold them accountable for wrongdoing without weakening the ones who play by the rules?

you already have PCV....

True. But judging by events of the last decade or two, is that enough either as a deterrent or an avenue to prosecution?

 

[ihopehefails]

Should a corporation that has committed a grave offense be confiscated from its shareholders and sold off by the government?

There is nothing really stopping the states from doing that or establishing the rules of the charter that they signed onto.

 

[JWBooth]

Should a corporation that has committed a grave offense be confiscated from its shareholders and sold off by the government?

only if we can dissolve the government as well for its offenses

 

[kyzr]

The Corporation and shareholders don't do anything to warrant "punishment". The Corporations employ lots of people generally with good pay and benefits.

If a Board or CEO, or CFO break laws, then they deserve to go to jail. Dismantling a corporation serves no purpose. The jobs are lost, and the shareholders write-off the tax loss. So the government can keep taxpayers, or take a tax loss. IMHO we need all the jobs and taxpayers we can get. I also want to see more execs in jail when they commit crimes.

 

[Liability]

I thought (from the headline) that this was going to be a stupid thread.

It is.

Nevertheless, it has gotten several otherwise intelligent people to discuss it as though it were meaningful.

Sad state of affairs.

Also, not unexpectedly, a few of the regular chumps have chimed in with such brilliant analysis as "No...but all their executives should be jailed "

Of course. If a corporation screws up, that's it. No rights should attach to the people running the company. Proceed immediately to sentencing.

The absolutely appalling LACK of logic in this thread is all too typical for knee-jerk liberals.

 

[Ragnar]

I thought (from the headline) that this was going to be a stupid thread.

It is.

Nevertheless, it has gotten several otherwise intelligent people to discuss it as though it were meaningful.

Sad state of affairs.

Also, not unexpectedly, a few of the regular chumps have chimed in with such brilliant analysis as "No...but all their executives should be jailed "

Of course. If a corporation screws up, that's it. No rights should attach to the people running the company. Proceed immediately to sentencing.

The absolutely appalling LACK of logic in this thread is all too typical for knee-jerk liberals.

If that is how you feel, you might want to stay away from the "Corporate Abortion Law" and "Corporate Gun Toting Drunk drivers" threads. They are awash in stupidity.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I just can't accept the government owning or controlling a civilian company. It still smells like socialism to me.

 

[Samson]

I'm for the death penalty for anyone that whines about not getting enough money from a Federal Government with a $3 Trillion Budget.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Should a corporation that has committed a grave offense be confiscated from its shareholders and sold off by the government?

1.) What would be considered a "grave offense?"

Causing massive death and destruction through willful negligence.

2.) Who would regulate this? The SEC?

The courts. The legislature. Just like criminal law. The legislature passes criminal law, and the courts enforce it. They get their day in court just like any human

3.) Sold off to whom?

The highest bidder

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.

They are the owners. They accepted a potential loss as high as the amount of their investment when they bought the stock. If the people you hire to run your company run it into the ground - you lose it.

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

If the crime is federal and the corporation is found guilty by a court of law.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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"?

If could be define as any action, which if done by a person, would be treason, is treason if done by a corporation.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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.

So I assume then you're also not for government seizing my private property through due process of law? Or do only corporations get absolute property rights?

I do know that the government seems to want to over regulate,

Examples?

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.

So you're fine with the government bailouts, right? Wouldn't want shareholders to wake up and find out their stock went bust.

 

[Gadawg73]

AGAINST.
Republicans favor big government more on this issue as they advocate tort reform.
That is the same but involves more power for government over the consumer.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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.

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?

Who decides the death of a corporation? Yes, if there is an ongoing problem the the shareholders will drop, and in will step the bottom feeders to buy the shares, I get that.
But until there is just a shell left, Who defines egregious wrongdoings? Will the bars keep moving? I'm against the government getting their mits on this except for the regulations. The government will keep trying to get a foot in the door. I'm against a government like that. I don't trust them.

So are you against government punishing people who commit crimes, as well?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I have a question for all opposed.

I was wondering if you'd be OK with me having all the rights of a corporation. I'd like to just pay fines if I kill someone. Thanks.

 

[Meister]

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?

Who decides the death of a corporation? Yes, if there is an ongoing problem the the shareholders will drop, and in will step the bottom feeders to buy the shares, I get that.
But until there is just a shell left, Who defines egregious wrongdoings? Will the bars keep moving? I'm against the government getting their mits on this except for the regulations. The government will keep trying to get a foot in the door. I'm against a government like that. I don't trust them.

So are you against government punishing people who commit crimes, as well?

Yeah, I don't believe in the justice system, I don't believe there are crimes, I believe if there is a victim, he/she should have known about the risks.

Your an idiot spider.....you may have gone to LSU, but it really hasn't given you anything to grow on. You lack deductive reasoning.

 

[Meister]

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.

So I assume then you're also not for government seizing my private property through due process of law? Or do only corporations get absolute property rights?
I am not for government seizing private property

I do know that the government seems to want to over regulate,

Examples?
healthcare Cap and trade

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.

So you're fine with the government bailouts, right? Wouldn't want shareholders to wake up and find out their stock went bust.

You missed the part about government seizure.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Who decides the death of a corporation? Yes, if there is an ongoing problem the the shareholders will drop, and in will step the bottom feeders to buy the shares, I get that.
But until there is just a shell left, Who defines egregious wrongdoings? Will the bars keep moving? I'm against the government getting their mits on this except for the regulations. The government will keep trying to get a foot in the door. I'm against a government like that. I don't trust them.

So are you against government punishing people who commit crimes, as well?

Yeah, I don't believe in the justice system, I don't believe there are crimes, I believe if there is a victim, he/she should have known about the risks.

Your an idiot spider.....you may have gone to LSU, but it really hasn't given you anything to grow on. You lack deductive reasoning.

So justice is something that only real people are subject to - but corporations, being higher citizens than real people - should not be subject to it?

 

[JWBooth]

Yeah, I don't believe in the justice system, I don't believe there are crimes, I believe if there is a victim, he/she should have known about the risks.

Your an idiot spider.....you may have gone to LSU, but it really hasn't given you anything to grow on. You lack deductive reasoning.

Majored in Underwater Basket Weaving and forgot the breathing apparatus.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

healthcare Cap and trade

Its interesting you quote as your examples something that has just passed and something that hasn't passed yet. I figured you would have used something that has been around, that way, you'd have actual hard evidence it doesn't work.


Are there any examples of over-regulation before the Obama administration, or is this a recent phenomenon?