Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlelou
I was thinking of Arthur Anderson where partners lost their jobs and had to pay back 100,000 of thousands of dollars in pay after the collapse. Isn't "corporate personhood" the best case scenario for business associations facing these type problems?
Well, if your're an arthur andersen partner who wasn't cheating, presumably you'd want the actions imputed to individuals, not the company as a whole. For things like civil torts you obviously want the company responsible, but things start to get weird when corporations can be criminals and have quasi free speech rights. I'm not anti-corporate personhood. Some documentary I saw on it a few years ago and most lefty critics of corporate personhood are pretty lame. But its not clear how much further it needs to go than owning property (land, cars, trademarks), the ability to enter contracts, and to be responsible for the torts of its agents. It's a complex issue that isn't normally discussed in a complex way.
This history of corporations is pretty interesting. They're largely a 20th century invention. Before that business entities were set up via complex trusts and such, often with unintended consequences, to allow for limited liability.