From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Sep 12 2003 - 11:41:03 MDT
Randall Randall wrote:
>
> On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 12:26 PM, Charles Hixson wrote:
> [Monsanto example snipped]
>
>> As for the investors...most of them still don't know that it happened.
>> And many don't even know that they are investors. (Investment through
>> market large cap funds, e.g.) So while it's a reasonable penalty that
>> they should loose their investment, they bear no real culpability.
>
>
> I'm still not sure why ownership without responsibility is regarded
> as a good thing, here. Why should we contort the legal system to
> reward owner negligence? Rather, let the owners own, and investors
> own shares of profit, instead of the company itself. This still
> protects those who invest, and doesn't create an exception for
> certain kinds of owners of property.
>
It's a good thing because it's the only was that large constructions can
be accomplished without an authoritarian government. I believe that the
first one was the Lord Mayor and Corporation of London, and it was used
to essentiall build London.
But these small investors can't know what it being done in their name.
The have ownership, but not control. Those who have control are the
ones who should bear moral/legal responsibility. But a limited fiscal
responsibility is reasonable.
Another way of saying it is the minor stockholders don't really own the
corporations. They are merely lending their fiscal resources. If you
don't control something, you don't own it. If you do control it,
pertending that you aren't responsible because you don't own it should
be no defense.
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 12 2003 - 11:50:11 MDT