From: Robbie Lindauer (robblin@thetip.org)
Date: Fri Sep 12 2003 - 11:55:17 MDT
On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 10:23 AM, Randall Randall wrote:
> 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.
Even this provide a morally vacuous veil for investors. consider:
Rupert Murdoch gives you $1,000,000,000 dollars to form a corporation.
He takes no ownership of the corporation, but rather a cut of the
profits.
Let's say that corporation exists for the sole purpose of extracting
precious metals from third-world countries by force.
Rupert's still INNOCENT of this as he deposits the first $1,000,000
return in the first month?
PUHLEEZE.
Best,
robbie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 12 2003 - 12:04:30 MDT