That is the problem eh? We bail them out if they suck at their business but are too large. We make it so people have a hard time suing them. And although we used to roll back corporations to the extent that we would break them up (like Ma Bell when it was big), we no longer have the will to do that. All of this is because we do not see them as a threat to our freedoms--only the government gets that.
We cannot and should not do away with corporations. Combining resources is the only way to great things, and a corp is a vehicle for doing so. However, we can and have treated them differently, Politicians put them on a pedestal, and allow them rights beyond what is reasonable. That impacts us in our daily lives in countless little ways.
Why allow only capital assets to be combined. What tenet of economics says that the combination of capital assets rather than labor assets in a negotiation is more fair or proper? Legally forbidding unions is just another interference in the economy by a government. Any asset should be able to be combined too (and remember the sophisticated professional lawyer or architect already combines their labor and expertise without the blink of an eye. It is when the "unsophisticated" "working class" people want to do the same thing that there is an objection. Capital interests demand the right to combine but refuse the same right to other kinds if assets m like the time of one laborer v, the time of several laborers.
So we could go back to old systems or start new laws, but the first step is to not think of these corporations as inviolate. They are just a means by which we combine capital assets owned by lots of different people. That is it, They should garner no special treatment beyond that they are possible. They should not be a shield to allow the unscrupulous to do what they would never be allowed to do as individuals.
R. Gilsoul, people can complain till the cows come home but people dont have any way to roll back corporations -
That is the problem eh? We bail them out if they suck at their business but are too large. We make it so people have a hard time suing them. And although we used to roll back corporations to the extent that we would break them up (like Ma Bell when it was big), we no longer have the will to do that. All of this is because we do not see them as a threat to our freedoms--only the government gets that.
We cannot and should not do away with corporations. Combining resources is the only way to great things, and a corp is a vehicle for doing so. However, we can and have treated them differently, Politicians put them on a pedestal, and allow them rights beyond what is reasonable. That impacts us in our daily lives in countless little ways.
Why allow only capital assets to be combined. What tenet of economics says that the combination of capital assets rather than labor assets in a negotiation is more fair or proper? Legally forbidding unions is just another interference in the economy by a government. Any asset should be able to be combined too (and remember the sophisticated professional lawyer or architect already combines their labor and expertise without the blink of an eye. It is when the "unsophisticated" "working class" people want to do the same thing that there is an objection. Capital interests demand the right to combine but refuse the same right to other kinds if assets m like the time of one laborer v, the time of several laborers.
So we could go back to old systems or start new laws, but the first step is to not think of these corporations as inviolate. They are just a means by which we combine capital assets owned by lots of different people. That is it, They should garner no special treatment beyond that they are possible. They should not be a shield to allow the unscrupulous to do what they would never be allowed to do as individuals.