Corporate totalitarianism?

[Steve Thompson]

Quoting Ken Brown (k.brown at ccs.bbk.ac.uk):
> 
> Steve Thompson wrote:
> > 
> > Quoting Aimee Farr (aimee.farr at pobox.com):
> > > I received the following today, by Robert Weissman, co-author of _Corporate
> > > Predators_, (corporatepredators.org) in regard to the Sara Lee Ball Park
> > > Frank Hot Dog incident, in which 21 people died. It prompted them to visit
> > > the White House to inquire as to 'a corporate death penalty.'
> 
> Over here in t he UK there is a company called Railtrack that about 20
> million people would be happy to see executed :-)

Heh.
  
> > How strange.  It's always individuals working within a corporation who should
> > be culpable for offences committed as a result of its business practices.
> 
> There is surely no suggestion that the individuals cease to be liable,
> just that the whole company is as well?

It doesn't seem reasonable to legitimise the legal fiction of "corporation as
person" at all.  A corporation is really nothing more than the aggregate of
its employees skills and assets (which are already considered to be `owned' by the
corporation as opposed to its principals.)
 
> > Will this not have the effect of divorcing personal responsibility further
> > from the executive and employees of a company?
> 
> But if the corporation as a whole is killed the shareholders lose their
> investment. XYZ inc no longer exists, there are no shares, no dividends.
> Presumably the assets of the company get sold off at public auction like
> houses with unpaid mortgages, or cars picked up off the street. 

Which _could_ incentivize the shareholders to pressure the board of directors
to ensure the corporations actions don't result in a loss.  However,
individuals working within a corporation will know that if they cause the
corporation to commit an offence, their personal risk will be less for the
reason that the `corporation' can take the fall for them.

> > Furthermore, might not the `death' of a company in some cases penalise other
> > companies which depend on the products or services of the `offender' leading
> > to a reluctance to prosecute the largest and arguably the worst criminals?
> 
> Most businesses have competitors, who will no doubt be happy to pick up
> the sales. Along with the assets, sold off cheap. 

Which incentivizes a new type of piracy.  Install provocateurs in the employ
of a competitor, have them `set-up' the company for a fall.  The law then
convicts and breaks up the company.  End result: you no longer have a
competitor and the true offenders get off with minimal punishment and collect
large deposits in their off-shore accounts.
 
> It will penalise the workers, which might be more important to

Who gives a shit about the workers?  Certainly not the governement, and the
major shareholders won't either.

> government, because they will have votes and a large company will have
> many votes, which might be very concentrated. Not much of a problem in a
> big city, where there are always other jobs, but in a small town or
> semi-rural area a single employer might be a huge part of the local
> economy.

Which justifies what?

Besides, the power of, say, the UAW will ensure that Ford or GM will never be
held culpable for any major offenses.  Same thing goes with Oil companies,
Union Carbides, and the rest.
  
> > At least when the responsible individuals are prosecuted, there is an
> > opportunity to `clean house' and reform the offending institution, as it
> > were.
> 
> Shareholder pressure should do that very effectively. If the managers
> break the law, you lose your investment. A big boost to corporate
> ethics.

I doubt it.
 
> My previous employer's business directly killed about 200 people  during
> the years I worked there. I mean directly, in industrial accidents, I'm
> not talking about pollution or product liability.  But shareholder
> pressure would have been very effective in helping keep things safe. 

For those responsible for ensuring workplace safety?
 
> Ken Brown


Regards,

Steve

-- 
``If religion were nothing but an illusion and a sham, there could be no
philosophy of it.  The study of it would belong to abnormal psychology....
Religion cannot afford to claim exemption from philosophical enquiry.  If it
attempts to do so on the grounds of sanctity, it can only draw upon itself
suspicion that it is afraid to face the music.''

      -- H. J. Paton, "The Modern Predicament"