Continued...

Why should we, the citizens, allow corporations those very nice protections from legal liability if we're not getting some benefit from those same corporations? Today, it's very much an automated and inexpensive process to incorporate (it's more difficult to get listed on a stock exchange and to be publicly traded) and there's no actual requirement for the incorporated entity to benefit the public.

The whole point is you're right - and that's a bad thing. When the public loses control of the corporations, they cease to become public. The whole point of "public" is that there should be a benefit to the public. When we reduce the obligations to the public, incorporated entities have caused trouble. Here's an excellent example:

"Through the 1920s, power concentrated in fewer hands as corporations issued shares with multiple voting rights, while other shares were sold with no votes at all. This practice was halted in 1926 by public pressure and the New York Stock Exchange refusing to list non-voting shares." [8]

What did that cause?

"It was possible to sell voteless shares in the economic boom of the 1920s, because more and more ordinary people were looking to the stock market to save the new money they were earning, but the law did not guarantee good information or fair terms. New shareholders had no power to bargain against large corporate issuers, but still needed a place to save." [8]

"The Wall Street Crash saw the total collapse of stock market values, as shareholders realized that corporations had become overpriced. They sold shares en masse, meaning meant companies found it hard to get finance. The result was that thousands of businesses were forced to close, and they laid off workers. Because workers had less money to spend, businesses received less income, leading to more closures and lay-offs. This downward spiral began the Great Depression." [8]

The thing is - it doesn't have to be this way. We, the citizens, have the power to force our elected representatives to actually adhere to the spirit of the regulations.

To incorporate and to be a publicly traded venture is a privilege. Doing so, to become incorporated, infers a great many legal protections. To be able to be publicly traded, to be able to be owned by the public, should require a level of responsibility to that same public - not just to the stakeholders but to the general public. Why? Because those people who own the stock are also given legal protections.

I own a significant amount of stock in publicly traded companies. Those companies can rape, murder, pillage, and burn - and, no matter what, I'm not even remotely legally accountable for their behavior. All I do is reap the rewards.

For that protection, for those privileges, those publicly traded entities should very well have an obligation to be "nice." To be able to have those protections, to be able to profit at the will of the people, should actually involve an obligation to those people. Remember, it's not just the incorporated entity, nor the publicly traded shares, that get benefit - the owner of the shares benefit as well. To have those benefits granted to those entities means those entities very much should have an obligation to the general public.

There's absolutely nothing stopping us from making this an issue. There's nothing stopping us from speaking out. There's nothing stopping the legislatures from ensuring that publicly traded companies benefit the public that allows them to have those very rights that enabled them to accumulate their wealth and to operate as a business. Nothing.

The system is broken, not working as designed, and it needs to be changed.

That said, again... You're right. Companies aren't public because they have to be "nice." However, that's the problem. They should be "nice" because they're allowed to be public. They should be "nice" because they're allowed to incorporate. They should be "nice" because they're afforded rights the average individual does not, in fact, have. When you commit a crime, you go to jail. When an incorporated entity commits a crime, the shareholders are never legally accountable. On top of that, many of the actual executives are never legally accountable.

It's a damned shame. It's an absolute problem and this problem has skewed the opinions of the public - the same public who should be benefiting from the corporations and their privilege to be traded publicly.

Fix the system because your statement is right - and that's the problem.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_corporate_law#Co...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_corporate_law#Hi...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_corporate_law_in_th...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_corporate_law_in_th...

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_Sports,_Inc._v._McQui...

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act#Legislat...

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_corporate_law#Hi...

Addendum: I am in no way displeased or mad at you. My post is not indicative of you being a problem. My post attempts to shine a light on the system being the problem. It is, in no way, meant to reflect poorly on you. You are, after all, just a reflection of the system. Your statement was 100% right. That's the problem.