Looking for positives, but especially negatives. What are the pitfalls of not granting corporations the same rights as people/citizens?

  • snooggums@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    25 days ago

    He incorporated to prevent losing his house from a customer suing him.

    Why should he be immune just because he wrote something on a piece of paper? Why shouldn’t that limited liability just be a thing to start with?

    • Bassman1805@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      25 days ago

      Because if we didn’t have such protections, the ONLY people who could ever afford to go into business are the already-super-wealthy.

      Nobody would ever open a small business if it meant risking the roof over their childrens’ head.

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        25 days ago

        I’m asking why the paper is necessary, as in why shouldn’t the limited liability just be a thing that exists in the first place.

        • Bassman1805@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          25 days ago

          Because the line does need to be drawn somewhere. You can’t just go out, cause harm to someone, and then claim “Oh, that harm was done by my company, not me personally. Incidentally, my company only has like $20 in assets for you to recover.”

          The paperwork also doesn’t entirely grant you the limited liability. You need to actually operate the company as a separate entity from yourself. If you “piece the veil” between individual and company, you may not be able to claim limited liability in court.

          • snooggums@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            25 days ago

            Why though? Why does ‘operating as a company’ have less liability than an individual?

            • Bassman1805@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              25 days ago

              See 2 comments ago. Nobody except the ultra rich could afford to go into business if it meant risking all of their personal assets.

              And like already mentioned: it’s not less liability, it’s separate liability. Misconduct as a business (which may not even be the owner’s fault, it could be an employee’s) can risk all of the business assets, but not personal assets owned outside the business.