Full Version: Coporate rights vs corporate responsibility
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...wtopic=6155&hl=
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...=0&#entry165067
The above two threads talk of corporate "personhood" (the first link) and the second deals with punishment for wrongdoing by corporate america.
There were very interesting and insightful comments on both threads.
This is the part that has been bothering me for some time- with rights, comes responsibility- you have a right to free speech, but you have a responsibility to use it in a manner that doesn't harm others physically (for instance, yelling "fire" in a theatre, causing someone to get trampled) - and when you violate those responsibilities, you have some sort of punishment, by that society, meted out in some manner.
So we have:
1) Corporations have all the rights of a citizen, with the exception of the right to vote- instead, they just buy the politician outright LOL (j/k
)
2) Yet, they have no responsibility for thier actions, and no practical application of punishment - because of the threat of harming the innocent "And also, there are all those people employed on the lower levels of the ladder who have no control over things like the Merck example in this post, and likely have no idea they are going on. Yet the closing of the company means the elimination of their jobs as well."
So, if anyone on this board, sticks a gun in someone's face, and takes 15 dollars from them, and is caught, there will be criminal consequences- however, if, say, Enron, steals hundreds of millions of dollars- no one really pays- or, in the case of say, Dick Cheney, no personal responsibility at all "Halliburton paid millions in fines "while he (Cheney) was CEO." What he meant was that it paid fines for matters that took place while Cheney was in charge. And in fact, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced Aug. 3 that Halliburton will pay $7.5 million to settle a matter that dates back to 1998, when Cheney was CEO.
Halliburton failed to disclose a change in its accounting procedures that resulted in making its earnings look better. Cheney himself was not charged with any wrongdoing, however. The SEC said Cheney "provided sworn testimony and cooperated willingly and fully in the investigation."
So my question is this:
Is it right to demand responsibility from an entity that has (nearly) all rights?
Is it right to give all rights to an entity without demanding responsibility for thier actions?
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...=0&#entry165067
The above two threads talk of corporate "personhood" (the first link) and the second deals with punishment for wrongdoing by corporate america.
There were very interesting and insightful comments on both threads.
This is the part that has been bothering me for some time- with rights, comes responsibility- you have a right to free speech, but you have a responsibility to use it in a manner that doesn't harm others physically (for instance, yelling "fire" in a theatre, causing someone to get trampled) - and when you violate those responsibilities, you have some sort of punishment, by that society, meted out in some manner.
So we have:
1) Corporations have all the rights of a citizen, with the exception of the right to vote- instead, they just buy the politician outright LOL (j/k
)2) Yet, they have no responsibility for thier actions, and no practical application of punishment - because of the threat of harming the innocent "And also, there are all those people employed on the lower levels of the ladder who have no control over things like the Merck example in this post, and likely have no idea they are going on. Yet the closing of the company means the elimination of their jobs as well."
So, if anyone on this board, sticks a gun in someone's face, and takes 15 dollars from them, and is caught, there will be criminal consequences- however, if, say, Enron, steals hundreds of millions of dollars- no one really pays- or, in the case of say, Dick Cheney, no personal responsibility at all "Halliburton paid millions in fines "while he (Cheney) was CEO." What he meant was that it paid fines for matters that took place while Cheney was in charge. And in fact, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced Aug. 3 that Halliburton will pay $7.5 million to settle a matter that dates back to 1998, when Cheney was CEO.
Halliburton failed to disclose a change in its accounting procedures that resulted in making its earnings look better. Cheney himself was not charged with any wrongdoing, however. The SEC said Cheney "provided sworn testimony and cooperated willingly and fully in the investigation."
So my question is this:
Is it right to demand responsibility from an entity that has (nearly) all rights?
Is it right to give all rights to an entity without demanding responsibility for thier actions?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Aug 29 2005, 05:19 AM)
So we have:
1) Corporations have all the rights of a citizen, with the exception of the right to vote- instead, they just buy the politician outright LOL (j/k
) 2) Yet, they have no responsibility for thier actions, and no practical application of punishment - because of the threat of harming the innocent "And also, there are all those people employed on the lower levels of the ladder who have no control over things like the Merck example in this post, and likely have no idea they are going on. Yet the closing of the company means the elimination of their jobs as well."
So, if anyone on this board, sticks a gun in someone's face, and takes 15 dollars from them, and is caught, there will be criminal consequences- however, if, say, Enron, steals hundreds of millions of dollars- no one really pays- or, in the case of say, Dick Cheney, no personal responsibility at all "Halliburton paid millions in fines "while he (Cheney) was CEO." What he meant was that it paid fines for matters that took place while Cheney was in charge. And in fact, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced Aug. 3 that Halliburton will pay $7.5 million to settle a matter that dates back to 1998, when Cheney was CEO.
Halliburton failed to disclose a change in its accounting procedures that resulted in making its earnings look better. Cheney himself was not charged with any wrongdoing, however. The SEC said Cheney "provided sworn testimony and cooperated willingly and fully in the investigation."
So my question is this:
Is it right to demand responsibility from an entity that has (nearly) all rights?
Is it right to give all rights to an entity without demanding responsibility for thier actions?
I disagree with the premise of your "questions".
There are mountains of laws that regulate corporations. Their officers can be held personally accountable if the corporation breaks those laws. In some cases, there are fines imposed (as in your Halliburton example above). In others, the officers do the "perp walk" and can be convicted in a court of law.
Corporations hardly are "all rights". They are strictly controlled (arguably TOO strictly). They are watched like hawks with respect to who they hire, who and why they fire, where they operate, how they operate, what they sell and how they sell it, and can even be punished if they compete too effectively against the competition.
How can you possibly maintain that corporations are "all rights" and no responsibility?
Union Carbide murders over 1000 poeple- not one American person, nor the corp itself, is held accountable- Merck- a drug they KNEW had cardiac issues, by thier own memos- no one held accountable- and, due to tort reform, the wrongdoing is actually profitable- and on and on- don't confuse regulation with responsibility-
what is amazing to me is the "pass" that is given by the right wing in this country- folks like Michael Milken cause far more damage than all the mafia controlled unions in the country- but who do we punish more? Michael Milken STILL came out of jail a billionare- crime does pay if you only spend five years in the pokey and still get to keep the fruits of your wrongdoing!
Ken Lay is probably the most perfect example of all- it is almost 6 years since his crimes were discovered- still a free man- even OJ simpson was locked up until his trial ! Even worse- if a drug dealer is arrested- they confiscate all his money, and make him deal with a public defender- yet, the corporate types get to keep all thier ill-gotten gains and spend millions on thier defense.
The list of corporate wrongdoing would eat up every bit of bandwidth this site has- yet the punishment meted out to the corporation is so small I can only think of one company that really had any consequences for thier actions- Arthur Anderson Acccounting and enron-
Ya, if anything, there is not NEARLY enough regulation and oversite in the PUBLICALLY traded boardroom-
but that is not the topic- did you read the threads on corporate personhood?
do you understand what rights a corporation has?
what is amazing to me is the "pass" that is given by the right wing in this country- folks like Michael Milken cause far more damage than all the mafia controlled unions in the country- but who do we punish more? Michael Milken STILL came out of jail a billionare- crime does pay if you only spend five years in the pokey and still get to keep the fruits of your wrongdoing!
Ken Lay is probably the most perfect example of all- it is almost 6 years since his crimes were discovered- still a free man- even OJ simpson was locked up until his trial ! Even worse- if a drug dealer is arrested- they confiscate all his money, and make him deal with a public defender- yet, the corporate types get to keep all thier ill-gotten gains and spend millions on thier defense.
The list of corporate wrongdoing would eat up every bit of bandwidth this site has- yet the punishment meted out to the corporation is so small I can only think of one company that really had any consequences for thier actions- Arthur Anderson Acccounting and enron-
Ya, if anything, there is not NEARLY enough regulation and oversite in the PUBLICALLY traded boardroom-
but that is not the topic- did you read the threads on corporate personhood?
do you understand what rights a corporation has?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Aug 29 2005, 07:39 AM)
Union Carbide murders over 1000 poeple- not one American person, nor the corp itself, is held accountable- Merck- a drug they KNEW had cardiac issues, by thier own memos- no one held accountable- and, due to tort reform, the wrongdoing is actually profitable- and on and on- don't confuse regulation with responsibility-
what is amazing to me is the "pass" that is given by the right wing in this country- folks like Michael Milken cause far more damage than all the mafia controlled unions in the country- but who do we punish more? Michael Milken STILL came out of jail a billionare- crime does pay if you only spend five years in the pokey and still get to keep the fruits of your wrongdoing!
Ken Lay is probably the most perfect example of all- it is almost 6 years since his crimes were discovered- still a free man- even OJ simpson was locked up until his trial ! Even worse- if a drug dealer is arrested- they confiscate all his money, and make him deal with a public defender- yet, the corporate types get to keep all thier ill-gotten gains and spend millions on thier defense.
The list of corporate wrongdoing would eat up every bit of bandwidth this site has- yet the punishment meted out to the corporation is so small I can only think of one company that really had any consequences for thier actions- Arthur Anderson Acccounting and enron-
Ya, if anything, there is not NEARLY enough regulation and oversite in the PUBLICALLY traded boardroom-
but that is not the topic- did you read the threads on corporate personhood?
do you understand what rights a corporation has?
It seems to me that the real problem that you have is with our criminal justice system, not corporations.
OJ (and Robert Blake) killed people and are walking around free. Not because there are no laws against murder. Because a jury of "their peers" couldn't vote to convict them.
There are many laws designed to regulate and control "corporations". And, the laws include personal accountability against corporate officers.
I, for one, am glad that we finally have an administration in office that takes these laws seriously and bothers to enforce them. People like Lay, Kozlowski, Stewart, and Ebbers, who committed their felonies during the "everything goes if it feels good 90's" are paying heavy prices now for their crimes.
If anything, we should rethink the jury system. I think that we'd get more justice if it weren't so dependent on the 12 people who inevitably get selected by shrewd defense lawyers. Oh yeah, and those getting those people "off" in our jury system aren't the "right wing".
Trial Lawyers Inc.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.