Corporate Ownership: Collectivist?

When a corporation owns something, who is it that owns the thing?

Corporations invent imaginary people so they can collectively own things. Strange.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
When a corporation owns something, who is it that owns the thing?

Corporations invent imaginary people so they can collectively own things. Strange.

But they aren't owned equally. Collectivism implies equal ownership.

a corporation is considered a person, so the corporation owns it.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
When a corporation owns something, who is it that owns the thing?

Corporations invent imaginary people so they can collectively own things. Strange.

The government?

Originally posted by whodey
The government?

the government owns all the "persons" so they technically own the corporate properties, but then again the governments are owned by the international banking cartels, so the people who own everything are the people who print the counterfeit global money supply.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
When a corporation owns something, who is it that owns the thing?

Corporations invent imaginary people so they can collectively own things. Strange.

The subject of one of my favorite papers at the uni, back in those days.

Legal personality is a tough, unresolved matter. Basically it was a medieval
resource artificially created to solve the legal challenges created by the
ownership of land by the boroughs and churches. It went down well as the
Christian conception of the members of a Church as the "corporate body"
was established in the collective mind. Of course, for a long time a corporation
and the privileges it purported was unequivocally seen a subsidy from the
state. Suffice to see the history of the East India Company, both the Dutch
and the English one.

After that, the issue gets really messy, both practically and theoretically, and
Coase's paper didn't exactly help. Is the corporation a Gestalt entity? Is it a
fiction? Is it a nexus of contracts? I'd recommend reading Nick Foster's paper
on the difference between the enterprise and the corporation, and how the
legal outcomes determine the "existence" of a legal entity, nothing else.

Me? I consider that it is a semantic construction existing only in the realm of
the legal world. Its impact on the real world is determined by the efficacy
of a politically sanctioned legal system. Henceforth, it is a malleable tool
(as it is the case with all things legal).

Also, you can depart from the legal realm of inquiry, and go more political.
In that case, you'll love Janet Dine.

If you check Dine, she departs from the legal scholarship mainstream
and simply puts it as a moral deflection device, by which Western people
can mentally release themselves from the guilt, vilify corporations for
the mayhem caused and still enjoy the benefits procured to them.

Good luck.

I see nobody is interested about this crucial subject nor
in learning about it.

Oh well. Keep "debating" the Middle East, guys. It helps
a lot to make the world a better place.

Originally posted by Seitse
I see nobody is interested about this crucial subject nor
in learning about it.

Oh well. Keep "debating" the Middle East, guys. It helps
a lot to make the world a better place.

Most of the recent Middle East threads on this forum have been started by you.

Originally posted by FMF
Most of the recent Middle East threads on this forum have been started by you.

I see you're ignorant and uninterested about this topic
and you'd rather flame.

Good for you, Gary.

******THREAD HIJACKED BY FMF********

Originally posted by Seitse
I see you're ignorant and uninterested about this topic
and you'd rather flame.

Good for you, Gary.

Who is "Gary"? What is "to flame"?

Originally posted by FMF
Who is "Gary"? What is "to flame"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_%28Internet%29

"Flaming, also known as bashing, is hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users. Flaming usually occurs in the social context of an Internet forum, Internet Relay Chat (IRC), Usenet, by e-mail, game servers such as Xbox Live or Playstation Network, and on video-sharing websites. It is frequently the result of the discussion of heated real-world issues such as politics, sports, religion, and philosophy, or of issues that polarise subpopulations, but can also be provoked by seemingly trivial differences."

http://spongebob.wikia.com/wiki/Gary_the_Snail

Garald Betram "Gary" Snail II is a Tritagonist character in the Nickelodeon animated TV show SpongeBob SquarePants, which first aired on May 1, 1999. In the television series, Gary is SpongeBob's loyal pet, although his behavior in several aspects resembles a snail. As revealed in "Rule of Dumb", Gary is the rightful king of Bikini Bottom and is related to Patrick. Gary is shown to be very bored and massivly cheeky, although, being a pet, he lacks the communication skills to convey this. In Gary's dream in "Sleepy Time", he is able to talk, has a humanoid body, and resides in a massive library.

That second one's just a guess 🙂

Originally posted by Sleepyguy

http://spongebob.wikia.com/wiki/Gary_the_Snail

That second one's just a guess 🙂

I was thinking, Gary Seven from Star Trek. But I'd have to watch the episode again to see what offence Seitse might be intending to cause.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_%28Internet%29

Ah, flaming. Well. If the annual RHP Flaming Tomatoes Awards were to expand to Usenet, e-mail, game servers like Xbox Live or Playstation Network, and video-sharing websites, I fear it could all become a bit too big and diffuse.

Originally posted by Seitse
I see you're ignorant and uninterested about this topic
and you'd rather flame.

Good for you, Gary.

Did he say his name was Gary in a PM to you? He used a different name in PMs to me. Knowing FMF though, that name is probably also not his real name. I'm sure he's highly amused by you calling him (or her, as some would insist) "Gary".