@Minarchist: Yep. Of course, it blows all of that money, so it's not like Americans are just getting rebate checks from Washington, DC. Only those who are plugged into the political Establishment actually get to enjoy the benefits of empire. The rest of us are being crushed under the Pentagon's iron boot just like the rest of the world.
Clayton -
Johnny Doe:I`m(and always have been) refering to the actual profits/money that has been made as a result of a companies operations.
What you said earlier was that a shareholder is liable because he provided the capital which made the tort possible. So which is it: is the shareholder liable because he profited from the corporation's tortious actions, or because he provided the capital which made those tortious actions possible?
You get to vote, you get to speak at general assemblies
Firstly, not all shares come with voting rights. Secondly, even if I as a shareholder do have the right to vote, suppose I choose not to? Or suppose I do vote but I vote against the policy which cause the tort? In what sense then am I responsible for the tort?
you condone the companies operations buy buying/owning/keeping the stocks in that company.
Does a customer of the corporation condone its operations by buying its products? Is he therefore liable? How about a contractor who does business with the corporation? How about a creditor who loans money to the company? How about an unrelated third party who writes an op-ed sympathetic to the company? How about an employee of the company? Don't they all "condone" the company in some sense? I think you need to define what you mean by "condone" if you want to use it as a standard for determining liability, because by its common usage all manner of people could be said to "condone" the corporation's operations in one way or another: people whom is it absurd to hold liable.
And I think you as a receipient of dividends from the company, should be responsible for any damages that the company might do to others/their property
I appreciate that's how you feel, but I'm trying to find a rationale behind that feeling.
up to the amount you have received in dividends + interest.
Why only up to that amount? Tort liabilities are unlimited because the victim did not agree to limit liability. Hence, if you want to hold shareholders liable for corporate torts, you need to go all the way, and make it unlimited liability.
I don`t care about who is responisble(they should perhaps go to jail, but that`s not what I`m refering to at the moment)/benefits, I`m refering to the profits that are made a a direct result of a companies operations, and that I think those profits(incl. dividends that are paid out) should pay for damages that occur/are uncovered.
You think the person responsible for the tort should go to jail, while someone else who is not responsible should compensate the victim? ...that's a very odd conception of justice in my opinion; it lets the tortfeasor escape his liability, while imposing that liability on some third party who had nothing to do with the tort.
Someone will probably inherit the claim.
That's really not the point. The example was to illustrate the absurdity of holding someone liable for a tort simply because he benefited from it.
But should those profits/that money be linked(have to be paid to the harmed party) to potential damages that occur/gets uncovered
When I said "profits cannot be liable for anything," my point was that you're starting at the wrong place. You're starting with the money itself and asking whether it should be used to compensate the victim. Instead, you need to begin by asking which person is liable, and that answers the question of which pile of money should be used to compensate the victim: the money belonging to the person who is liable for the tort.