Political Theory

Re: Corporations

Minarchist — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 01:47:34 GMT

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.

Re: Corporations

Clayton — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:18:37 GMT

@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 -

Re: Corporations

Johnny Doe — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:20:42 GMT

Minarchist:
Johnny Doe:
He provided the capital, i.e. the capital he provided made the tort possible.

In lending you my car, I have provided you with the capital which made it possible for you to kill a pedestrian. Does that in itself make me liable?

I`m(and always have been) refering to the actual profits/money that has been made as a result of a companies operations.

Minarchist:
Johnny Doe:
And the owners are part of the board of directors, or are at least represented.
Some owners have influence over corporate policy, most do not. Suppose I own 10 share of Coca Cola; to say that I'm represented on the board is absurd. I have the exact same amount of influence over the actions of the board as does someone who owns 0 shares of Coca Cola: i.e. no influence whatsoever. As such, I can be no more liable for any actions the board takes than any random person on the street who owns 0 shares.

You get to vote, you get to speak at general assemblies, you condone the companies operations buy buying/owning/keeping the stocks in that company. 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, up to the amount you have received in dividends + interest.

Minarchist:
Johnny Doe:
I`m not saying the owner is directly responible for the damages, but that the money/profits that come as a result of the damages should be used to cover damages....But what about the money that has been made as a direct result of the damages, should that money go to the victim/victims?
In trying to identify who is liable for a tort, I ask who is responsible. It seems you're using a different standard; instead of asking who is responsible, you're asking who benefits. If a person benefits from a tortious action, you want to hold them liable for it regardless of what if any responsibility they had for bringing it about.

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.

Minarchist:
Now, consider the implications of this standard for liability. Suppose you kill my creditor. Well, I benefit from that, as I am now relieved of my debts.

Someone will probably inherit the claim.

Minarchist:
So I should be liable for the murder?

Only if you had any part in it, i.e. you ordered it for instance.

Minarchist:
Johnny Doe:
But the money/profits aren`t innocent, those profits are a direct result of the tort.
And if you kill my creditor, my profits (not having to pay back the loan) are also a direct result of the tort. So I should have to pay restitution to the victim?

Same as above.

Minarchist:
Johnny Doe:
But what about the profits(the money that was made as a direct result of the pollution), are those profits liable/should those profits be liable for the damages?
Profits/money cannot be liable for anything;

But should those profits/that money be linked(have to be paid to the harmed party) to potential damages that occur/gets uncovered

Minarchist:
only persons can be liable. Which persons? The persons responsible for the tort, and it is from out of their property (whether dividends or from a completely unrelated source) that restitution should be paid to the victim.

But the people who contribute the capital/make the tort possible, condone the potential damages by buying/owning/keeping the stocks in a company which risks doing damage to other people/their property. And the dividends they receive are then a direct result of the damages that can be done, and therefore I think these receipients should risk having to pay the dividends to the victims of the damage the company might do.

Minarchist:
N.B. I think most of the conceptual problems re corporations result from thinking about them in the abstract. If instead you disaggregate "the corporation," and break it down into its real constituent parts (actual human beings), it make much more sense.

Re: Corporations

Minarchist — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 20:36:45 GMT

I think I follow, you're saying the USG spends more in the US than it collects in taxes from the US (with foreigners paying the difference one way or another)?

Re: Corporations

Clayton — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 20:24:48 GMT

@Minarchist: Neither, though I think something can be said about the material advantages of living near the imperial center if you ignore the soul-sucking spiritual effects (cf The Hunger Games). My point is merely that the leftists are right that USG "generates more wealth" than it directly collects in taxes - the trouble with their argument is that they think it is magical government faerie dust that makes this possible where the reality is that it is exported central bank inflation and impossibly large debt levels made possible by the strong arm of the Pentagon.

Hans Hoppe lays it all out with his characteristic laser-precision in this article.

Clayton -

Re: Corporations

Minarchist — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 19:14:06 GMT

@Clayton

Are you saying that the empire makes US citizens better off than they would be otherwise (i.e. if the US followed a non-interventionist foreign policy), or only that one is better off living in the imperial center than in the imperial periphery?

Re: Corporations

Albeaver89 — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:52:46 GMT

Corporations are property and as such cant own land or contracts. Its like asking if my dog owns the dog house. I own the dog house and the dog. So the owner(s) would own the corp, the contracts ect.

the group of people are only as moral/ethical as the individuals in the group. If perhaps, the group takes new people the ethics of the group change because the people in the group changed.

Re: Corporations

Minarchist — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:38:08 GMT

Johnny Doe:
He provided the capital, i.e. the capital he provided made the tort possible.

In lending you my car, I have provided you with the capital which made it possible for you to kill a pedestrian. Does that in itself make me liable?

And the owners are part of the board of directors, or are at least represented.

Some owners have influence over corporate policy, most do not. Suppose I own 10 share of Coca Cola; to say that I'm represented on the board is absurd. I have the exact same amount of influence over the actions of the board as does someone who owns 0 shares of Coca Cola: i.e. no influence whatsoever. As such, I can be no more liable for any actions the board takes than any random person on the street who owns 0 shares.

I`m not saying the owner is directly responible for the damages, but that the money/profits that come as a result of the damages should be used to cover damages....But what about the money that has been made as a direct result of the damages, should that money go to the victim/victims?

In trying to identify who is liable for a tort, I ask who is responsible. It seems you're using a different standard; instead of asking who is responsible, you're asking who benefits. If a person benefits from a tortious action, you want to hold them liable for it regardless of what if any responsibility they had for bringing it about. Now, consider the implications of this standard for liability. Suppose you kill my creditor. Well, I benefit from that, as I am now relieved of my debts. So I should be liable for the murder?

But the money/profits aren`t innocent, those profits are a direct result of the tort.

And if you kill my creditor, my profits (not having to pay back the loan) are also a direct result of the tort. So I should have to pay restitution to the victim?

But what about the profits(the money that was made as a direct result of the pollution), are those profits liable/should those profits be liable for the damages?

Profits/money cannot be liable for anything; only persons can be liable. Which persons? The persons responsible for the tort, and it is from out of their property (whether dividends or from a completely unrelated source) that restitution should be paid to the victim.

N.B. I think most of the conceptual problems re corporations result from thinking about them in the abstract. If instead you disaggregate "the corporation," and break it down into its real constituent parts (actual human beings), it make much more sense.

Re: Corporations

Clayton — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 04:57:58 GMT

@gotlucky: I don't mean it in any kind of ultimate sense like "boy, am I glad we have the USG". I mean it only insofar as I described its effects. This is, ultimately, what the leftists want to claim credit for. The neocons understand what the leftists often do not: sure, the USG manages to generate "over unity" effects with respect to the American public, but it does this by virtue of its ability to redistribute wealth from foreign lands to the US.

Clayton -

Re: Corporations

Johnny Doe — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 04:35:30 GMT

Minarchist:
Johnny Doe:
But the shareholders could end up with profits, but without being economically liable.
That's right. If a given shareholder played no role in the commission of a tort, he is not liable for that tort.

He provided the capital, i.e. the capital he provided made the tort possible. And the owners are part of the board of directors, or are at least represented.

Minarchist:
Johnny Doe:
That one can only loose what one puts into a LLC, but one can make alot more than one puts into a LLC, without being economically liable for potential damages that occur after one has received dividends that far exceeds what one put into the LLC in the first place.
So what? You would prefer to hold people liable for torts for which they are not responsible? Suppose I lend you my car. If you hit and kill a pedestrian, should I be liable?

I`m refering to the profits/gains that are made as a direct result of a companies operations, so how else are damages to be paid, unless it`s the profits made from the corporations operations?

Minarchist:
I might be liable; for example, I would be liable if I knew that you were planning to go hit a pedestrian. And there are other possible circumstances under which I might be liable. But I am not liable simply in virtue of being the owner of the car - likewise with owners of corporate shares.

I`m refering to the profits/money the owner receives, I`m not saying the owner is directly responible for the damages, but that the money/profits that come as a result of the damages should be used to cover damages.

Minarchist:
Johnny Doe:
If the shareholders receive dividends, and later on it`s discovered that the oprations of the company has hurt other people/damaged other peoples property, the receivers of the dividends won`t be liable,
They may or may not be liable. Whether a given shareholder is liable depends entirely on whether he had an involvement in the tortious action.

But what about the money that has been made as a direct result of the damages, should that money go to the victim/victims?

Minarchist:
If I own 10 shares of Coca Cola, and never vote or otherwise participate in the management of the company, I cannot possibly be liable for anything the company might do.

No not you, but the money you have received from the company, should be used to pay potential damages from the companies actions.

Minarchist:
If I'm a shareholder who does participate in the management of the company, and I get behind a certain policy, and that policy leads to a tort, then I am liable.

It makes no difference whether or not you voted in the general assembly, you`re not liable in todays system.

Minarchist:
But some other shareholder who also participates in management, but who opposes this same policy, is not liable. You see, it's not that shareholders are never liable, it's that they are not liable simply in virtue of being shareholders. To determine whether a shareholder is liable you use the same criteria as you would to determine whether any other person is liable, and you look at each shareholder individually. I'm against blanket liability and blanket immunity for shareholders.

Minarchist:
Johnny Doe:
And it`s the owners/receivers of the dividends who have the funds to pay for the damages, not the employees.
Firstly, the inability of a tortfeasor to pay restitution to his victim does not justify making other innocent people liable for that tort.

But the money/profits aren`t innocent, those profits are a direct result of the tort.

Minarchist:
Secondly, in many cases shareholders are going to be liable for corporate torts - just not all shareholders. Specifically, the biggest, richest shareholders will tend to be liable, because they're the ones who are actually involved in management: as opposed to the retiree who holds 10 shares in his pension fund, Also, to be clear, I'm not suggesting that only those persons who physically undertake the tortious action are liable. For example, if corporation dumps toxic waste into a river and kills some people downstream, I'm not saying that only the guys who physically dumped the waste are liable. If they took this action on instructions from their boss, that boss is liable. If that boss came up with this scheme himself, the buck stops with him. But if it was a higher-level corporate policy, maybe emanating from the board of directors, well then the board too is liable: or at least those boardmembers who supported the policy. Why are they liable? Because they took actions which they knew (or reasonably should have know) would cause a tort.

But what about the profits(the money that was made as a direct result of the pollution), are those profits liable/should those profits be liable for the damages?

Re: Corporations

Johnny Doe — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 03:58:20 GMT

Andris Birkmanis:
Johnny Doe:
If the shareholders receive dividends, and later on it`s discovered that the oprations of the company has hurt other people/damaged other peoples property, the receivers of the dividends won`t be liable, eventhough they profitted from the business practises. And it`s the owners/receivers of the dividends who have the funds to pay for the damages, not the employees.
Were the employees physically coerced to hurt/damage other people/property? If not, it's their sole liability. If yes, there is a separate liability of the person who coerced them (not the shareholders as a group). It's that simple.

But how are the employees going to pay for the damages, when it`s the shareholders who has gotten most of the profits? Don`t you think it`s a problem at all, that shareholders might get profits that are much larger than what they put into the company in the first place, without being liable for any damages that come as a direct result of the corporations operations/-profits that are made?

Re: Corporations

eliotn — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 03:56:58 GMT

"The Fed in combination with the Pentagon are operating a globe-spanning, fiat money empire that silently extorts the citizens of subject nations, who are already much poorer than US citizens. So, just by virtue of living in the US, you are enjoying the benefits of empire by driving on the roads, using the electrical powerlines, etc."

Can you please elaborate on this point? I can see how devaluing the dollar can hurt people in other nations, but the rest is a bit unclear (except for all the wars).

Re: Corporations

Minarchist — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 23:02:12 GMT

The point being that the non liable individuals of a corporation are more concerned about profit than they are about liability. They are only concerned about liability in so as far as how it will affect profits. They can always re-brand and set up another corporation and so on. It is just a different kind of liability.

If a shareholder isn't liable for a tort, then a fortiori he played no role in the decision to take the action which caused that tort. In other words, the only people who don't care about whether an action causes a tort are the people who don't have any effect on whether that action is taken in the first place. Hence, there is no possibility that someone can push for some action and escape liability for a tort resulting therefrom. If someone has no influence over the policy of the corporation (e.g. a shareholder who does not participate in management), who cares if they are unconcerned about the possibility of the corporation committing a tort, since their lack of concern does not infect corporate policy? You see my point?

Re: Corporations

gotlucky — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:36:45 GMT

Clayton:

The hubris and hypocrisy of leftist politicians who appeal to this fact (the "Elizabeth Warren syndrome") is astonishing. They leave out the crucial point that the reason the USG is a net wealth advantage to the average American is the same reason the Roman government was a net wealth advantage to the average Roman citizen: it is operating a criminal, expropriatory empire that exacts tributes from foreign lands and brings those tributes home to enrich itself and buy the loyalty of its citizenry.

Is the USG a net advantage to the average American? I can't help but think that even Americans making $20,000 a year would still be better off without the government taxing them and interfering with the economy in general. Just imagine if a couple that makes $40,000 per year were able to keep that entire $40,000. Just imagine if farmers weren't paid to not farm. Why do you think that the USG is a net wealth advantage to the average American?

Re: Corporations

Clayton — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:21:49 GMT

can we use a similar analysis to deduce that "humans as they actually exist are decidedly anti-libertarian"?

Hm, I don't see the parallel to my argument. What I'm trying to point out is that the entire corporate world is infused with cronyism. There are financial advantages (e.g. tax deductions) that accrue to anyone who owns and operates a business (which, above a certain size, is invariably incorporated). These advantages exist courtesy of the State. Hence, the entire structure of business is infused with privilege.

Of course, this is also true of anyone who lives in the US. The Fed in combination with the Pentagon are operating a globe-spanning, fiat money empire that silently extorts the citizens of subject nations, who are already much poorer than US citizens. So, just by virtue of living in the US, you are enjoying the benefits of empire by driving on the roads, using the electrical powerlines, etc.

The hubris and hypocrisy of leftist politicians who appeal to this fact (the "Elizabeth Warren syndrome") is astonishing. They leave out the crucial point that the reason the USG is a net wealth advantage to the average American is the same reason the Roman government was a net wealth advantage to the average Roman citizen: it is operating a criminal, expropriatory empire that exacts tributes from foreign lands and brings those tributes home to enrich itself and buy the loyalty of its citizenry.

Clayton -