Linux and the X wrote:Would this prohibit terminating legal recognition of a corporate entity, thereby causing the property it formerly held to become ownerless and escheat to the people?
Clause 3. Due process.
Advertisement
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:00 pm
Linux and the X wrote:Would this prohibit terminating legal recognition of a corporate entity, thereby causing the property it formerly held to become ownerless and escheat to the people?
by Linux and the X » Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:13 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:26 pm
by Linux and the X » Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:42 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:57 pm
by Linux and the X » Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:24 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Linux and the X wrote:That seems like a useful loophole, then.
That wouldn't be a loophole because it would dissolve the corporation back into private ownership of its components. Having just read up on my corporation law — the people who owned the corporation's shares and to whom the corporation owes their shares. Naturally, if you have your laws set up stupid, there's nothing that can much be done anyway. This proposal attempts to deal with arbitrary seizures and the creation of barriers to immediate seizure. If you set up your economy such that it is open to investment, this proposal would put up barriers towards seizure of those investments by force.
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:29 pm
Linux and the X wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:That wouldn't be a loophole because it would dissolve the corporation back into private ownership of its components. Having just read up on my corporation law — the people who owned the corporation's shares and to whom the corporation owes their shares. Naturally, if you have your laws set up stupid, there's nothing that can much be done anyway. This proposal attempts to deal with arbitrary seizures and the creation of barriers to immediate seizure. If you set up your economy such that it is open to investment, this proposal would put up barriers towards seizure of those investments by force.
It certainly is a loophole. The corporation owning the assets to be nationalised can simply be terminated (which itself isn't nationalisation), and those assets (which no longer have an owner) escheated. The result is the same, but it doesn't actually interact with this proposal.
by Linux and the X » Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:38 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Linux and the X wrote:It certainly is a loophole. The corporation owning the assets to be nationalised can simply be terminated (which itself isn't nationalisation), and those assets (which no longer have an owner) escheated. The result is the same, but it doesn't actually interact with this proposal.
I would then tell you (1) that is nationalisation and (2) corporate law says that the revoking a charter leads to the distribution of those assets to the shareholders in the company.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:56 pm
Linux and the X wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:I would then tell you (1) that is nationalisation and (2) corporate law says that the revoking a charter leads to the distribution of those assets to the shareholders in the company.
It is not nationalisation merely because the end result is the same. Revoking a corporate charter is clearly not nationalisation, and what corporate law does with the assets of a terminated corporation — which is not the same in all member States — is not, either.
by Linux and the X » Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:05 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:(OOC: This kind of consequence-ignoring pedantry is the same kind of argument that the Simpsons lampooned in The Bob Next Door.)
Similarly, when you do something that, under a certain legal structure, will inevitably result in the distribution of assets to the state, then that would be nationalisation.
by Araraukar » Sat Jun 11, 2016 7:24 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Driving cars is obviously legal. But when I drive a car into someone, this logical would say it is not murder merely because the end result is the same.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Jun 11, 2016 8:40 am
by Araraukar » Sat Jun 11, 2016 11:50 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Well, if you intended to kill him, it's murder. I would say that if you intend to nationalise by abuse of stupidly set up corporate law and 'revoke corporate charters', that's still nationalisation.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement