You can ask the same about state and politicians, honestly. If a politician causes a massive deficit it's not like they're gonna garnish his wages.

>>873301
It would be much harder to place fault for something like that.

Corporations shouldn't have rights to begin with.

>>873420
I don't know what you mean. It's not really a right, it's a concept on how to treat companies under the law.

>>873289


The loop holes interpreted by the U.S 13th amendment opened up this entire mess. In terms of small business it makes sense, but when you begin to get into the hundreds of millions, billions, and trillions of dollars and your corporation has offices in 80% of the countries on the planet, it becomes even more dangerous than what this poster says: >>873301


Because while the state and politicians may not be personally held liable for certain fuck ups and disasters, there is some form of recourse and accountability in place.

The recourse and accountability in place for large corporations is almost entirely fiscal in nature, and the penalties so moderate that it is seen as a business expense instead of a moral or ethical black mark on the company. If Apple can get away with paying $20 a day for the assembly of their phones in Taiwan by working them 16 hours a day and the penalty for getting caught is a few tens of millions, it is a business decision to pay the fine and mask the unethical and immoral operations of the business instead of investing in actual change for the workforce.

There was a time where being a corporation was a privilege. But with little revision of corporate law and obligations in an age of rising globalism these loop holes are going to see the rise of massive mobile nations which pay nothing to anyone and continue to suck money out of the economy instead of contributing to it.

Say what you want about Microsoft, but they have dozens of subsidiary ventures that run at a net-loss which are a benefit of the public good. Apple is sitting on half a trillion dollars in cash and invests only in its own internal development, headhunting the best and brightest instead of investing in a new generation of eager potential employers.

>>873473
> The loop holes interpreted by the U.S 13th amendment opened up this entire mess
I don't know about that. The same legal approach is taken regarding companies as separate people in Britain and in Ireland (those are the only countries i am sure of but i would assume there is more).

I do agree with most of that though. I find it especially ridiculous that a parent company is treated as a completely separate thing from a subsidiary even if they have the exact same shareholders and directors. The whole concept seems to have gotten way out of control.

>>873289
Let's say a corporation dumps mercury into a public park, the individuals deemed complicit in the crime will be prosecuted then the corporation will pay a huge fine.

Now imagine some hippies protest against corporate personhood and it is dropped. What would happen if a corporation illegally fracks under a small town causing an entire block to get sucked into a giant sinkhole killing dozens of people? They just choose a few employees to be fall guys, there is nothing to deter this behavior, no incentive for them to strictly monitor what is going on, if they wanted they could take the same risks again and again.

>>873503

You will find that the U.K has a far longer history in reigning in and dealing with corporations. The Hudson's Bay Company is probably the least spoken of but most obvious example, even more so than the Tea Company.

Hudson's Bay Company was aptly named so because they owned everything around said bay, from the Pacific to the Atlantic. They had an utter monopoly on every piece of seal fat and hair of fur that came from North America and went back to Britain for manufacturing and sale.

After the end of the second world war, until roughly the late 1960's, Britain began to slowly align the way it literally did business in the same way the Americans did. This had been happening en-masse in London, but it was starting to spread all across NATO countries. While companies are certainly under more scrutiny in Europe than indeed anywhere else in the world, Google's recent paltry tax pay out to the U.K done in backrooms between executives and the finance minister himself demonstrate just how freely and openly companies flaunt their new independence.

Keep in mind, Google is a company that, at least philosophically speaking, produces nothing. They began as a website that ran searches on every other search engine in the world, that was their entire gimmick- whatever you typed into google, they ran through a worldwide network of well established search engines. They have done little but hijack every single industry they are in through brute force, and by brand recognition become the new staple of said business. See: Advertising, mapping, GPS, Web Browser, Electric Car, Handheld Operating systems.

And this is the 'new' money, I am not even discussing the daily breaches in western ethics and morality that goes on in an epic scale in vastly larger industries.

>>873580
>produces nothing
Nothing? Really? I guess they can just tell the thousands of coders they have hired to pack it up go home. They don't make anything anyway.

>done little but hijack every single industry they are in through brute force
If you define brute force as "creating reliable, fast, easy to use and understand software under a trusted brand, and providing them to everyone for the price of watching an ad", then sure.