[DRAFT] Nationalisation Convention

[Imperium Anglorum]

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.

[Linux and the X]

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.

Revocation of a corporate charter is not nationalisation.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Clause 3. Due process.

Revocation of a corporate charter is not nationalisation.

Then it isn't a problem then? If your laws state that properties and assets held are then distributed to the people, then that isn't nationalisation. However, I am unfamiliar with corporation law.

[Linux and the X]

Revocation of a corporate charter is not nationalisation.

Then it isn't a problem then? If your laws state that properties and assets held are then distributed to the people, then that isn't nationalisation. However, I am unfamiliar with corporation law.

That seems like a useful loophole, then.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Then it isn't a problem then? If your laws state that properties and assets held are then distributed to the people, then that isn't nationalisation. However, I am unfamiliar with corporation law.

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.

[Linux and the X]

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.

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.

[Imperium Anglorum]

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.

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.

[Linux and the X]

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.

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.

[Imperium Anglorum]

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.

Parsons: That argument is patently ridiculous. (OOC: This kind of consequence-ignoring pedantry is the same kind of argument that the Simpsons lampooned in The Bob Next Door.) Simply because an action is legal on face does not excuse the perpetrator of doing it. Shooting guns is legal. But if it kills someone it is not. But, it is not murder merely because the end result is the same! 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.

P: 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. Different corporate legal structures would say different processes for corporations when dissolved. I believe that in most nations (OOC: and most nations on Earth), the assets are distributed to shareholders. The remaining privatised nature of those assets is not nationalisation (i.e. the state ends up in control of the assets).

[Linux and the X]

(OOC: This kind of consequence-ignoring pedantry is the same kind of argument that the Simpsons lampooned in The Bob Next Door.)

Have you forgotten where you are? The Festering Snakepit is built on pedantry.

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.

Fair enough. We'll use a less fun loophole, then.

[Araraukar]

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.

Off-tangent OOC: Murder charges and especially convictions depend on pre-meditation and intent, so probably a bad example. "Vehicular manslaughter" on the other hand is often judged the same as any act that ends up with you unintentionally killing someone.

[Imperium Anglorum]

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.

[Araraukar]

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.

But if you end up in a situation where the corporation has violated your nation's laws, you're allowed to revoke their charter and then annex their property, since you were applying it as a punishment for lawbreaking, not primarily to get their stuff.