Should Corporate persons resonsible for death, have their rights strip

[MysTerri]

It won't take another man made disaster like the one BP has done to convince me; oil companies need to go. We are FAR behind where we should be in the alternative fuel market. We are far behind because of the choices governments have made to not say " No!" to oil. Like the Liberal government in British Columbia, who legislated out of existence a bright, alternative vehicle company, GEM, not only out of business, but right out of the country to Pakistan who is now enjoying the enormous profits. This was a huge mistake, yet British Columbia clumbers ahead taking steps to allow off-shore drilling instead.

What will it take? There has already been so much death and destruction at the hands of oil giants. Time to put them to sleep. And any other corporation that breaks the law. Time to force corporations to adhere to the law or lose their privileges and have punishment administered, like anyone else. ENOUGH of their FREE REIGN.

Edited May 14, 2010 by MysTerri

[Bob]

It won't take another man made disaster like the one BP has done to convince me; oil companies need to go. We are FAR behind where we should be in the alternative fuel market. We are far behind because of the choices governments have made to not say " No!" to oil. Like the Liberal government in British Columbia, who legislated out of existence a bright, alternative vehicle company, GEM, not only out of business, but right out of the country to Pakistan who is now enjoying the enormous profits. This was a huge mistake, yet British Columbia clumbers ahead taking steps to allow off-shore drilling instead.

What will it take? There has already been so much death and destruction at the hands of oil giants. Time to put them to sleep. And any other corporation that breaks the law. Time to force corporations to adhere to the law or lose their privileges and have punishment administered, like anyone else. ENOUGH of their FREE REIGN.

Did you just read and/or watch Joel Bakan's "The Corporation", or something? Let's say a corporate entity is stripped of its corporate status... then what? What is then done with the assets, liabilities, operations, stakeholders and everything else associated with the business? It just doesn't make sense. Corporations can be made to pay monetary and other damages for their ills. Also, those involved with the corporation are can still be held personally responsible for crimes, contemporary examples include Enron's Ken Lay and Skilling, and the dude from Worldcom (I forget the CEO's name).

Whether or not our governments pursue corporation appropriately is another question, altogether...

Edited May 13, 2010 by Bob

[WIP]

Did you just read and/or watch Joel Bakan's "The Corporation", or something? Let's say a corporate entity is stripped of its corporate status... then what? What is then done with the assets, liabilities, operations, stakeholders and everything else associated with the business? It just doesn't make sense. Corporations can be made to pay monetary and other damages for their ills. Also, those involved with the corporation are can still be held personally responsible for crimes, contemporary examples include Enron's Ken Lay and Skilling, and the dude from Worldcom (I forget the CEO's name).

Whether or not our governments pursue corporation appropriately is another question, altogether...

Let's call it the Corporate Death Penalty, since big business keeps pushing to expand the definition of corporate personhood. So, if a corporation commits environmental genocide, as will be the case in the coming months and years down in the Gulf, then give BP the death penalty and sell off its assets or create a number of smaller oil companies barring any present BP executives from having a role. And, use BP's billions in monetary holdings to pay settlements for damages from the oil spill before shareholders get their take.

[M.Dancer]

Lets end the oil companies. Lets outlaw oil. Lets walk five miles, barefoot to work. Lets do nothing at work. Lets walk five miles home, barefoot. Let go to sleep on our dirt floors, hungry...

[Shady]

corporations who cause death should lose their rights immediately, like any other person.

People don't lose their rights for causing death. Not sure where you got that from.

What will it take? There has already been so much death and destruction at the hands of oil giants. Time to put them to sleep.

As you type at your petroleum composed keyboard and computer!

And any other corporation that breaks the law. Time to force corporations to adhere to the law or lose their privileges and have punishment administered, like anyone else. ENOUGH of their FREE REIGN.

Free reign? I'm not sure paying billions in tax revenue is considered a free reign.

[Timothy17]

People don't lose their rights for causing death. Not sure where you got that from.

As you type at your petroleum composed keyboard and computer!

Free reign? I'm not sure paying billions in tax revenue is considered a free reign.

I have to agree here.

A clever/benevolent government can and should have a policy of supporting industry and business in general, but having laws and policies in place that punish them (especially their wallets) when they screw up or commit crime, especially if the PR is bad. People shouldn't be afraid of their government plundering them if they start a business or are industrious (e.g., excessive taxation and red-tape that discourages activity); however, they should be afraid to behave immorally or irresponsibly in the conduct of their business.

I agree that it would be a wise policy to try to be as energy independant as possible. That's just protecting our sovereignty. I do not agree that we should risk increased poverty in order to satisfy the ideals of environmentalism. Killing oil for the sake of killing oil is like going in to Iraq without an exit strategy. You have to have a working alternative to oil before you can demand oil be discarded, otherwise the economic consequences and the wide-spread unemployment it would cause would be on your head.

No one loves oil for the sake of loving oil. If reasonable, realistic alternatives to it can be made available then people, by an large, would be open to its use and implementation. Problem is we don't have that alteranative yet or -if we do- then its case has not been adequately stated.

[Natchuck]

I didn't realize this poll was just meant as a rant against oil companies. I voted for them to be punished for causing a death like any other person. I do not agree that all oil companies are evil and should be abolished. You should change the poll to reflect your true agenda.

[ToadBrother]

Lets end the oil companies. Lets outlaw oil. Lets walk five miles, barefoot to work. Lets do nothing at work. Lets walk five miles home, barefoot. Let go to sleep on our dirt floors, hungry...

Yes, because greater corporate liability for disasters is basically a luddite position.

Edited May 13, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Natchuck]

Let's call it the Corporate Death Penalty, since big business keeps pushing to expand the definition of corporate personhood. So, if a corporation commits environmental genocide, as will be the case in the coming months and years down in the Gulf, then give BP the death penalty and sell off its assets or create a number of smaller oil companies barring any present BP executives from having a role. And, use BP's billions in monetary holdings to pay settlements for damages from the oil spill before shareholders get their take.

we don't apply the death penalty to any other persons, so why would we apply it tocorporations?

[Bob]

Let's call it the Corporate Death Penalty, since big business keeps pushing to expand the definition of corporate personhood. So, if a corporation commits environmental genocide, as will be the case in the coming months and years down in the Gulf, then give BP the death penalty and sell off its assets or create a number of smaller oil companies barring any present BP executives from having a role. And, use BP's billions in monetary holdings to pay settlements for damages from the oil spill before shareholders get their take.

How is it not obvious to you that such a "corporate death penalty" is not in the best interests of the public? Do I really need to explain all the harm that would be caused by such a decision to the many stakeholders of every large corporation? It should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that such a decision would be disastrous. Just a handful of parties that would be negatively affected include the employees of the business, as well as the employees and owners of other businesses with strong business relationships with the "killed" firm. Not to mention the loss of productivity and research conducted that fat the firm that the public benefits from with respect to the provision of goods and/or services as well as development of new and better goods and/or services (products and services that improve the quality of our lives). I'd advise you to consider that fulfilling the public good is more important than fulfilling your anti-corporate fantasies.

Please refrain from using fake terms such as "environmental genocide" in order to increase the dramatic effect of your posts, it doesn't do anything to advance your argument.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Bob

[Timothy17]

How is it not obvious to you that such a "corporate death penalty" is not in the best interests of the public? Do I really need to explain all the harm that would be caused by such a decision to the many stakeholders of every large corporation?

At the same rate, though, I would argue that it is possible for systematic immorality to become addictive and even seem necessary when it is not. Justice is more important to building societies than profits. It's for this reason that drug dealing is against the law: sure, it could be "civilized" by regulation but the consequences would be the same for society. You'd be allowing people to profit from an addiction that has no personal or public benefits, while guising the activity as beneficial due to the employment, tax revenues or other secondary consequences the activity generated.

So, while I agree that "killing" a firm in most cases would be way over the top, it doesn't mean that some activity needs to be stopped exactly because it is fundamentally bad for society. Companies shouldn't be cut any slack when it comes to basic principles of justice, otherwise bad behaviour is perpetuated and will only culiminate, and finally cease, in disaster.

[M.Dancer]

Yes, because greater corporate liability for disasters is basically a luddite position.

By all means, hold companies responsible for their liabilities and make it stick, but the OP is tinfoil.

BP is currently being punished by the shareholders...

http://www.google.ca/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:BP

[Bob]

At the same rate, though, I would argue that it is possible for systematic immorality to become addictive and even seem necessary when it is not. Justice is more important to building societies than profits. It's for this reason that drug dealing is against the law: sure, it could be "civilized" by regulation but the consequences would be the same for society. You'd be allowing people to profit from an addiction that has no personal or public benefits, while guising the activity as beneficial due to the employment, tax revenues or other secondary consequences the activity generated.

I started typing out a response to this paragraph, but I deleted it all because I'm not sure you're the kind of person I want to discuss these matters with. Without elaborating, virtually all of this above paragraph is incoherent or just plain wrong.

So, while I agree that "killing" a firm in most cases would be way over the top, it doesn't mean that some activity needs to be stopped exactly because it is fundamentally bad for society.

I may regret asking you this, but have you any examples of activities that need to be stopped?

Companies shouldn't be cut any slack when it comes to basic principles of justice, otherwise bad behaviour is perpetuated and will only culiminate, and finally cease, in disaster.

I think we could have an interesting discussion over how well our justice system has prosecuted corporations and associated guilty parties (i.e. CEOs of companies who were complicit in mobilizing the company towards illegal activity), but this is a different topic than what you seem to be driving at.

What companies have been "cut slack" with respect to "basic principles of justice"?

[ToadBrother]

By all means, hold companies responsible for their liabilities and make it stick, but the OP is tinfoil.

BP is currently being punished by the shareholders...

http://www.google.ca/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:BP

It strikes me that shareholder punishment doesn't really help the situation in the Gulf. One of the biggest problems is the cap on a liability that oil companies enjoy in the States. Obama is seeking to raise that cap much higher, but I think the reasonable question is why there should be a cap at all? I live in coastal BC where the likelihood of offshore drilling seems pretty high now, and quite frankly I think it's absolutely wrong to have any limits on liability. If a company causes a trillion dollars in damage to the coastline, then it should be forced to pay a trillion dollars or go bankrupt in the process.

[M.Dancer]

It strikes me that shareholder punishment doesn't really help the situation in the Gulf. One of the biggest problems is the cap on a liability that oil companies enjoy in the States. Obama is seeking to raise that cap much higher, but I think the reasonable question is why there should be a cap at all? I live in coastal BC where the likelihood of offshore drilling seems pretty high now, and quite frankly I think it's absolutely wrong to have any limits on liability.

I would say the cap should be the cost plus punitive damages. But in the litigious USA, a cap may have other purposes...

If a company causes a trillion dollars in damage to the coastline, then it should be forced to pay a trillion dollars or go bankrupt in the process.

You don't want that. Bankrupt companies don't pay bills. On the otherhand, if it did cost a trillion dollars ....a payment schedule would be in everyone's interest.

[eyeball]

Should corporations guilty of causing death be stripped of its corporate existence?

No, but their boards of directors should be subject to partial control by elected representatives from the jurisdictions they operate in, especially corporations that are in the business of resource extraction or whose activities impact the environment and ecosystems that people rely on.

Edited May 13, 2010 by eyeball

[Wilber]

By all means, hold companies responsible for their liabilities and make it stick, but the OP is tinfoil.

BP is currently being punished by the shareholders...

http://www.google.ca/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:BP

Good time to buy.

[bush_cheney2004]

..... I live in coastal BC where the likelihood of offshore drilling seems pretty high now, and quite frankly I think it's absolutely wrong to have any limits on liability. If a company causes a trillion dollars in damage to the coastline, then it should be forced to pay a trillion dollars or go bankrupt in the process.

Then of course you feel the same way about local, provincial, and federal government....right? No limits on liability or lawsuits against government entities?

[Oleg Bach]

Dispite what some might want to believe, a corporation is NOT a person - it is that thing - a collective mindless cruel beast. If a corporation kills a person then the singular person who instigated the original idea that lead to death should be held to account - it is ironic and hypocritial that a corporation wants it both ways....to be a thing and a person at different times..when it suits them...IF a corporation behaves like a beast then it is the enemy of humanity and should be dealt with harshly..like stripping the corporate charter away leaving the bad humans responsible for a crime vulnerable under proper human law.

[Bonam]

oil companies need to go.

Go where? You can't just get rid of oil companies. Who is gonna extract the oil then? Individual dudes with shovels? Not gonna fly.

Long as we need oil, we need oil companies.

However, they should of course be held to account for any damage or death they might cause.

[MysTerri]

Let's call it the Corporate Death Penalty, since big business keeps pushing to expand the definition of corporate personhood. So, if a corporation commits environmental genocide, as will be the case in the coming months and years down in the Gulf, then give BP the death penalty and sell off its assets or create a number of smaller oil companies barring any present BP executives from having a role. And, use BP's billions in monetary holdings to pay settlements for damages from the oil spill before shareholders get their take.

Absolutely This is the kind of thinking we need more of in the world today. There are so many other investments that could bring about more profitable and sustainable existence for life, without the tremendously disastrous consequences we see in one corporate act after another. These criminals should be dissolved and their assets re-dispersed to those whose ideas for industry are more in keeping with life on the planet for all. Kudoos

Edited May 14, 2010 by MysTerri

[Muddy]

Yah get rid of the oil companies for sure. Lets get some horses back on the road. They are good products from horses,especially for the roses and when they get too old we can eat the suckers. Lets get the oil from whales to heat and light our homes and factories. What? Coal works good too. A little messy but heck whats a little smog. I mean how many people really died back in the fifties London? I think the old coal running train engines looked so neat compared to the diesels any way. Who needs oil any way.

BP has a lot to answer for. They should be made to pay up for those who lost their lively hood, the clean up of the ecosystem and this should be done with as little time in court rooms as possible. The people effected by the Exxon Valdez have still not been compensated thanks to company lawyers.

[M.Dancer]

No, but their boards of directors should be subject to partial control by elected representatives from the jurisdictions they operate in, especially corporations that are in the business of resource extraction or whose activities impact the environment and ecosystems that people rely on.

They already are...

[eyeball]

Let me rephrase that, their boards of directors should include representatives elected by people who live in the jurisdictions corporations operate in. And I repeat, especially corporations that are in the business of resource extraction or whose activities impact the environment and ecosystems that people rely on.

[M.Dancer]

Let me rephrase that, their boards of directors should include representatives elected by people who live in the jurisdictions corporations operate in. And I repeat, especially corporations that are in the business of resource extraction or whose activities impact the environment and ecosystems that people rely on.

Boards already have directors elected by people who live in the jurisdictions corporations operate in.

Could we have another moonbat proposal?