Wal Mart & Healthcare

[SnowDog]

Most corporations are not traded publicly. This makes it very difficult to sell stock in them. Once you buy the stock in the corporation, you really don't have a way to unload the stock easily. So if the corporation takes action to which you disagree, and creates a liability for itself, you might spend a year or more, trying to sell your stock to avoid the personal liability. You could be trapped, running up a liability for an action for which you disagree.

Now, if some court ruled that a company did something so wrong, that anyone who took profit from the corporation while it was making illegal money, would have to return that money.. that might make sense in some very specific circumstances, but that would be the exception rather than the rule. For all practial purposes, companies buy insurance to cover their liabilities. I can't think of a single instance where a company went out of business because of some unbacked liability, other than bankruptcy and those types of debts associated with bankruptcy could be contracted away from the stockholders. The whole point may just be a moot point, and that is my point: that talking about changing corporate structure, implying that corporations wouldn't exist in the free market, or that something fundamental would change with the way corporations are run ... is just incorrect.

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

Rothbard says, "Please, get educated..."

[Harry Tuttle]

http://www.alohio239.org/images/american-flag-eagle_sm.jpg

If tomorrow all the things were gone I'd worked for all my life,...

...you could bet it was Uncle Sam and/or State government who took it all away...

...but I'm proud to be an American where at least I'm told I'm free.

[Hideaki769]

...but I'm proud to be an American where at least I'm told I'm free.

It's better to believe you are then realize you arent and are powerless to change it.

Like religion it makes you warm and fuzzy inside.

[markuzick]

Most corporations are not traded publicly. This makes it very difficult to sell stock in them. Once you buy the stock in the corporation, you really don't have a way to unload the stock easily. So if the corporation takes action to which you disagree, and creates a liability for itself, you might spend a year or more, trying to sell your stock to avoid the personal liability. You could be trapped, running up a liability for an action for which you disagree.

Now, if some court ruled that a company did something so wrong, that anyone who took profit from the corporation while it was making illegal money, would have to return that money.. that might make sense in some very specific circumstances, but that would be the exception rather than the rule. For all practial purposes, companies buy insurance to cover their liabilities. I can't think of a single instance where a company went out of business because of some unbacked liability, other than bankruptcy and those types of debts associated with bankruptcy could be contracted away from the stockholders. The whole point may just be a moot point, and that is my point: that talking about changing corporate structure, implying that corporations wouldn't exist in the free market, or that something fundamental would change with the way corporations are run ... is just incorrect.

If that's true, then limited liability isn't necessary, yet so many businesses incorporate just for that purpose. Especially the smaller ones with only one owner.

Do you know why?

One reason is to save on insurance costs, including the cost of following safety rules instituted by insurance companies. Why spend money when you can socialize the cost?

[Harry Tuttle]

Most corporations are not traded publicly. This makes it very difficult to sell stock in them. Once you buy the stock in the corporation, you really don't have a way to unload the stock easily. So if the corporation takes action to which you disagree, and creates a liability for itself, you might spend a year or more, trying to sell your stock to avoid the personal liability. You could be trapped, running up a liability for an action for which you disagree.

Now, if some court ruled that a company did something so wrong, that anyone who took profit from the corporation while it was making illegal money, would have to return that money.. that might make sense in some very specific circumstances, but that would be the exception rather than the rule. For all practial purposes, companies buy insurance to cover their liabilities. I can't think of a single instance where a company went out of business because of some unbacked liability, other than bankruptcy and those types of debts associated with bankruptcy could be contracted away from the stockholders. The whole point may just be a moot point, and that is my point: that talking about changing corporate structure, implying that corporations wouldn't exist in the free market, or that something fundamental would change with the way corporations are run ... is just incorrect.

If that's true, then limited liability isn't necessary, yet so many businesses incorporate just for that purpose. Especially the smaller ones with only one owner.

Do you know why?

One reason is to save on insurance costs, including the

I incorporated my company several years back in order to get a contract with a very large company, in order to protect myself from liabilities that might stem from being named in a lawsuit along with them. If I, as a consultant, go pull the permits for a major construction project then somebody on the project busts a water line and floods a house, my name might be listed along with Acme GlobalCom, Ace Engineering and Construction, Smith Backhoe, etc. Eventually that company went bankrupt, along with most of my customers and I closed the business. After that, the Corporation protected me from the State of California who wanted to come after the corporation for all kinds of ridiculous fees and compliance costs. I'm all "sorry dude, that business was closed 6 years ago and the assets were liquidated".

[libertypile]

>>>Here's one example from Denver:
>>>http://www.thedenverchannel.com/money/2015327/detail.html
>>>http://www.thedenverchannel.com/money/2539911/detail.html

In these links, there's no eminent domain involved in that Denver Walmart deal, but the city is planning on giving Walmart a $10 million subsidy to build their store in that location.

You're right.  The language in the first article is misleading "But these businesses are being forced out to make way for a super Wal-Mart."  However, this CNN article does mention it (without sources though) http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news/fortune500/retail_eminentdomain/ *shrug*

[SnowDog]

Most corporations are not traded publicly. This makes it very difficult to sell stock in them. Once you buy the stock in the corporation, you really don't have a way to unload the stock easily. So if the corporation takes action to which you disagree, and creates a liability for itself, you might spend a year or more, trying to sell your stock to avoid the personal liability. You could be trapped, running up a liability for an action for which you disagree.

Now, if some court ruled that a company did something so wrong, that anyone who took profit from the corporation while it was making illegal money, would have to return that money.. that might make sense in some very specific circumstances, but that would be the exception rather than the rule. For all practial purposes, companies buy insurance to cover their liabilities. I can't think of a single instance where a company went out of business because of some unbacked liability, other than bankruptcy and those types of debts associated with bankruptcy could be contracted away from the stockholders. The whole point may just be a moot point, and that is my point: that talking about changing corporate structure, implying that corporations wouldn't exist in the free market, or that something fundamental would change with the way corporations are run ... is just incorrect.

If that's true, then limited liability isn't necessary, yet so many businesses incorporate just for that purpose. Especially the smaller ones with only one owner.

Do you know why?

One reason is to save on insurance costs, including the cost of following safety rules instituted by insurance companies. Why spend money when you can socialize the cost?

I'm not sure why single owner companies incorporate. I incorporated my business in 1991 because we had three owners. Banks will also give loans to corporations, knowing that the liability is with the corporation and not the owners, but if you borrow money as a proprietor, you're personally liable.

There is another reason to incorporate. Some non-profit corporations don't have shareholders; like churches. They specify a method of governance when they incorporate, and then they can own property without any actual shareholders.

[Harry Tuttle]

I'm not sure why single owner companies incorporate. I incorporated my business in 1991 because we had three owners. Banks will also give loans to corporations, knowing that the liability is with the corporation and not the owners, but if you borrow money as a proprietor, you're personally liable.

There is another reason to incorporate. Some non-profit corporations don't have shareholders; like churches. They specify a method of governance when they incorporate, and then they can own property without any actual shareholders.

I already gave you a true life scenario. What am I, invisible? 

I incorporated my company several years back in order to get a contract with a very large company, in order to protect myself from liabilities that might stem from being named in a lawsuit along with them...

I left out the fact that the company mentioned in that situation would not even accept us for that project until we incorporated. The corporate officers were myself and my wife.

[markuzick]

I incorporated my company several years back in order to get a contract with a very large company, in order to protect myself from liabilities that might stem from being named in a lawsuit along with them. If I, as a consultant, go pull the permits for a major construction project then somebody on the project busts a water line and floods a house, my name might be listed along with Acme GlobalCom, Ace Engineering and Construction, Smith Backhoe, etc. Eventually that company went bankrupt, along with most of my customers and I closed the business. After that, the Corporation protected me from the State of California who wanted to come after the corporation for all kinds of ridiculous fees and compliance costs. I'm all "sorry dude, that business was closed 6 years ago and the assets were liquidated".

Using an unjust law of the state to protect yourself from other unjust laws of the state may be an acceptable necessity.

We live in this system and to survive and prosper we must cooperate with the rules of the system, except when we have good reason to believe that we can "get away" with breaking the rules.

If an unjust law benefits us, then fine, we can take advantage of it, as long as we don't abuse it in such a way that its implementation becomes weapon to victimise someone. We can still do what we can to abolish these laws, even if we are part of a special interest that benefits from them. E.g., I can use the public library and still be principled enough to vote against a tax increase to fund it, even though, in the short term, a tax increase for the library budget would benefit me personally.

[SnowDog]

Which law do you believe is unjust?

My point is that corporate law IS just. It's just a natural reflection of how the market would work. Just because you own something, doesn't mean that you're responsible for how people use that something. An owner of a corporation is not responsible for how it runs, and should not be held liable for the actions of others.

[markuzick]

Which law do you believe is unjust?

My point is that corporate law IS just. It's just a natural reflection of how the market would work. Just because you own something, doesn't mean that you're responsible for how people use that something. An owner of a corporation is not responsible for how it runs, and should not be held liable for the actions of others.

That's like saying that state enterprises, e.g., the USP, a system of socialized medicine, a state owned broadcasting system, etc., are a reflection of how the free market, if it was allowed to, would work.(In this context, you should always speak of the free market, not the market, as the market, free or not, is always at work. Even socialism is a product of market demand!)

A state owned factory looks a hell of a lot like a privately owned one; At least on the surface.

If the owner of something is not necessarily liable for how it's run, then no law giving blanket immunity for liability is needed just for some particular class of assets. This is just a carrot offered to businesses and holding companies as an incentive for them to become more directly controlled and taxed by the state.

If corporate law at times seems to approximate the way true liability, as determined in an objective court of law, is assigned, that isn't a justification for all the injustice, unfairness and distortions of the free market that come with it.

[Bill Brasky]

>>>The fact is, without the government having as much power as they do, corporations wouldn't have the power that they do.  Never mind that the very existence of corporations in itself is a fucking sham set up so that the people who start them and run them can do anything they want without personal liability because the government allows a public company to exist as it's own entity.  Therefore, not one person is accountable for the company unless there is a financial issue.  Even then, they'll just suffer some headaches, but none of their personal artifacts get touched.

Can you give me an example of some sort of scenario for which you'd like to hold someone in the corporation personally responsible? In this scenario, specify specifically who you would want to hold responsible.

The owners of the corporations vote and elect the board of directors of the corporation, who subsequently vote and appoint the officers of the corporation, who then make the decisions for the corporation. If you are trying to hold those who take actions for the corporation, responsible for their actions, then there is no clear line of responsibility back to the corporate owners, or even the board of directors. It would be completely arbitrary to hold a minority shareholder responsible for the decisions of the corporation, most decisions of which, he won't even be aware of. Likewise, even those on the board of directors probably won't be involved with the day to day operations of the corporation. Who, for instance, would you hold responsible for the Exxon Valdez oil spill?

What we have today, is a system where the corporation is held financially liable for mistakes made by corporate personnel, and officers are personnally held criminally liable for their decisions. This is the only way you can do it, if you want to assign responsibility to the actors, and not the owners and directors who may not be involved in the day to day decisions of the corporation, or who may even disagree with many decisions the corporation makes.

Simple solution?  Dissolve the stock market and don't allow publicly owned companies.  That's what started this whole mess, among other things.

Are you out of your fuckin' mind?

[slayerboy]

>>>The fact is, without the government having as much power as they do, corporations wouldn't have the power that they do.  Never mind that the very existence of corporations in itself is a fucking sham set up so that the people who start them and run them can do anything they want without personal liability because the government allows a public company to exist as it's own entity.  Therefore, not one person is accountable for the company unless there is a financial issue.  Even then, they'll just suffer some headaches, but none of their personal artifacts get touched.

Can you give me an example of some sort of scenario for which you'd like to hold someone in the corporation personally responsible? In this scenario, specify specifically who you would want to hold responsible.

The owners of the corporations vote and elect the board of directors of the corporation, who subsequently vote and appoint the officers of the corporation, who then make the decisions for the corporation. If you are trying to hold those who take actions for the corporation, responsible for their actions, then there is no clear line of responsibility back to the corporate owners, or even the board of directors. It would be completely arbitrary to hold a minority shareholder responsible for the decisions of the corporation, most decisions of which, he won't even be aware of. Likewise, even those on the board of directors probably won't be involved with the day to day operations of the corporation. Who, for instance, would you hold responsible for the Exxon Valdez oil spill?

What we have today, is a system where the corporation is held financially liable for mistakes made by corporate personnel, and officers are personnally held criminally liable for their decisions. This is the only way you can do it, if you want to assign responsibility to the actors, and not the owners and directors who may not be involved in the day to day decisions of the corporation, or who may even disagree with many decisions the corporation makes.

Simple solution?  Dissolve the stock market and don't allow publicly owned companies.  That's what started this whole mess, among other things.

Are you out of your fuckin' mind?

Evidently yes.

I just have a very bad seething hate for anything related to the stock market and how manipulated it is and how all companies on the stock market have stopped giving a crap about their customers and only care about money.  Greedy fucks.

[SnowDog]

If corporate law at times seems to approximate the way true liability, as determined in an objective court of law, is assigned, that isn't a justification for all the injustice, unfairness and distortions of the free market that come with it.

If your point is that government shouldn't create the fictitious entity, the corporation, even if the law wouldn't effectively change any type of behavior by individuals working together in companies, then that makes sense. Good point.

But then you talk about the injustice, unfairness, and distortiions that come with corporations, and that confuses me. Can you give me an example of injustice, unfairness, and distortions created by corporate law?