The corporation
29 May 2013, 7:00 am
The corporation is a government created and approved entity. Would anyone here get rid of the corporate charter? Why or Why not? Personally, I would get rid of the corporate charter and take away all of their corporate charters. Here is my reasoning.
Since there would be no more corporate charters and no more government intervention in the economy in this way this would make it to where one person or a group of people would own the business. I believe this would make whomever owns this business more accountable. If they're more accountable then more than likely they will not want to grow as big. This means more than likely we will have more mom and pop stores again and therefore more competition and true competition. This is my 2 cents.
Don't conservatives want smaller government? This one way to this in my opinion.
29 May 2013, 9:55 am
Since there would be no more corporate charters and no more government intervention in the economy in this way this would make it to where one person or a group of people would own the business. I believe this would make whomever owns this business more accountable. If they're more accountable then more than likely they will not want to grow as big. This means more than likely we will have more mom and pop stores again and therefore more competition and true competition. This is my 2 cents.
Don't conservatives want smaller government? This one way to this in my opinion.
There must be better ways of limiting liability (a requirement, since with unlimited liability few would invest and form new firms).
The idea of pretending a corporation is a -person- is ridiculous. There has to be a better way. If a Corporation is a person, then it is a zombie.
ruveyn
29 May 2013, 10:47 am
You'd run into the same problem that led to the creation of limited liability and corporations, concentration of capital for capital-intensive businesses, such as canals, railroads, and banks.
I'm not sure how much you know about partnerships, but there is simply no way to set up a capital intensive business when the legal organization changes when any party dies or leaves. No one would lend to such an organization, and no one in their right mind would put up an equity investment, because you'd never know when you'd get it back.
If you ever get a chance, read the relevant chapter on the growth of the United Kingdom in the late 1700s to early 1800s in "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations", by David Landes. He has a good explanation of the subject.
_________________
Our first challenge is to create an entire economic infrastructure, from top to bottom, out of whole cloth.
-CEO Nwabudike Morgan, "The Centauri Monopoly"
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (Firaxis Games)
29 May 2013, 1:49 pm
Corporations are defined as a "legal fiction." They have personhood for the sake of legal applications, but they are not living people.
The law was NEVER supposed to grant corporations rights equal or equivalent to real people. So long as that barrier was maintained, corporations were a good idea.
The fundamental flaw is that there is no real way to punish a corporation for its crimes. Yes, officers can be prosecuted (with varied success), but the corporation can't be imprisoned, and as investors would be harmed by "killing" the corporation, court can't do anything more than assess fines...and even those get capped by the complaint that too severe a penalty is equivalent to destroying the corporation. This allows corporate entities to act with considerable impunity compared to any other business model. Even LLPs and LLCs (limited liability partnerships and corporations) have individuals more directly accountable for the actions of their businesses than the corporation has.
