posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 05:02 PM
reply to post by TheOneElectric
Do you even understand what a corporation is, beyond the tired old anti-business story lines?
Corporations exist to raise capital. They are able to raise capital because people can invest in a corporation absent being involved in the
inner-workings of it. How do you expect that items that cost large amounts of money would be produced were groups of individuals not able to raise
large sums of money? Steve Jobs could have created Apple by calling up a few friends to get the cash? No. He needed to raise significant capital
and in order to do that he needed to issue stock. The way that those investors be protected in a financial sense requires a legal structure to
ensure fair treatment of those investors. That legal system is generally referred to as the rules of encorporation.
99.9% of the time you use anything mass produced which include drugs, electronics, food in most cases, clothes, every time, you are using something
that was created/funded by investments made by individuals (or for individuals via institutional investors) which provided the capital to research,
invent, build and distribute those goods. It would be simply impossible absent a method of providing a vehicle for people to invest absent liability
for those investments.
Corporations also have executive liability because there is no way, in the chain of production for a corporate entity to control with absolute
certainty the entire process of production/distribution. I can not think of a corporation that controls the entire means of production and
distribution within the confines of their own corporate entity. They are certainly responsible for some level of governance over all facets of their
value chain, but, that can only be defined as a robust system of oversight and protocols to govern suppliers and partners. For example, should a
drug manufacture be totally responsible, practice good corporate governance, take tough standards in selecting and tougher standards on managing
suppliers and there is gross misconduct on the part of a supplier, should the executives of the corporation be held liable? They perform a complete
and thorough review and audit of a processing plant on Monday and everything is 100% perfect. On Tuesday, some loon circumvents all existing
processes and methodologies and dumps poison into a vat which winds up killing people. The heads of the corporation should be held liable? As it
stands, they will likely pay out significant sums of money for something that they in no way could control.
I get it. You claim you like free enterprise and are all for "fair" practices but don't like corporations. Fine, take a few minutes and stop
using those things you are currently using that are provided by corporations. Its easy. Turn the power and water to your home off, take your
clothes off, go outside and sit on the ground.