Unironically, yes. You shouldn’t be able to shield your actions under a different corporate umbrella.
“Oh, guess we can’t fine them much because Twitter is a money pit, so they’ll get to continue breaking the law for cheap”
Nah, make the fine off of his entire net worth, make him cash in some of that stock so he can finally pay taxes and fines. Make it hurt enough for him to consider not breaking the laws of countries he wants to do business in.
Sounds good in principle, but isn’t the one of the main purposes of creating an LLC or Corporation to shield your personal assets from the company’s finances? Everyone cheers for these policies until you’re the one they’re coming for. I hope you’re as cheerful when the government wipes your personal bank account as consequence of your company’s affairs.
The problem is if we give major companies a way out, on the off chance that it might have a benefit for the little guy… those major companies end up stepping on the little guy anyway.
So why let them shield themselves from the consequences of their action?
There’s no need to give a company a “way out”. The government can be as harsh as it wants to be within the limits of the law. But as soon as you start targeting the owner when he is supposed to be financially protected by the law, there are worse consequences in the long term. No matter how much they personally fine Elon, he has infinite money, this doesn’t really hurt him and I doubt he cares since he seems more focused in helping Trump win than helping X (or himself) succeed.
Gotta ask, what would you propose that would curb Elon from willfully committing crimes as he is?
He continues to do so because he’s proven the system is broken as soon as someone is sufficiently wealthy. He fights the charges, then when that runs out he fights the amounts, and even when he does get his comeuppance to the tune of 44 billion, he’s an even bigger brat cause he finally got stood up to. Do you think that there’s a way to systematically even the playing field?
Gotta ask, what would you propose that would curb Elon from willfully committing crimes as he is?
I’m not a lawmaker so I don’t know. And it hasn’t been dealt with by those who are because it’s not an easy decision. But the solution can’t possibly be allowing governments to damage the owner’s personal finances for choices at the company level. Truth is you can’t open this road for Elon Musk and never use it again, because that’s never how it goes down. If this is allowed to happen, more people will be unwilling to open businesses because the only protection that they’re supposed to have can be completely ignored by the government. Governments are as predatory as mega corporations, and neither can be given too much power. This takes away power from the companies and gives it to the government, not the average citizen.
Do you think that there’s a way to systematically even the playing field?
To clarify the cost of creating an LLC is a hundred bucks more or less depending on the jurisdiction. So Elon should be allowed to create “Musk Corp Oct2024 LLC” and then say or do anything under the guise of Musk Corp Oct2024 LLC, then if he’s sued or fined just declare bankruptcy and create “Musk Corp Nov2024 LLC” and do whatever he wants?
At some point you have to recognize the individual is at fault. You can’t just hide behind “Oh that wasn’t me, that was the company” or " That was Musk of SpaceX having an opinion of Musk of Tesla, they are different entities."
If someone is attempting to be genuine and truthful when it comes to personal statements, fine, we can consider the protections. But if someone is flagrant and malicious then those protections no longer apply.
At some point you have to recognize the individual is at fault
Sure, and you catch them on something else, like fraud. But if it’s purely a financial failure, you bankrupt the corp and move on, because that’s how the law is structured.
If we want different results, we need different legal structures. In this case, we shouldn’t be granting liability protections in the first place if the person opening it has a history of bankruptcies or whatever. But once the liability protections are granted, they must be upheld or revoked, and if revoked, all prior actions should still be covered.
That’s how the law should work, and we can’t just waive away legal contracts because they’re inconvenient, because that violates the rule of law.
Yes that’s how it should be. But who determines if the person is doing it on purpose or if it’s a genuine mistake? There shouldn’t be ambiguity in the law, which is why you always either end up hurting corporations, or hurting citizens. Can’t please both with objective law.
How about a governing body with systems of checks and balances? You’re pretending that laws are just out there enforcing themselves. The EU isn’t just some dude with a vendetta. It’s a large collection of people making decisions.
And in fact as a business, in order to do business in the EU, you’ve agreed that the EU has the ability to make decisions like this.
I don’t think I quite agree about governments being predatory by nature. I think they can be, have been in the past, and safeguards and checks and balances need to be there to prevent it. But generally a democratically elected government is beneficial, albeit flawed. Often reactive rather than proactive, but not commonly bloodthirsty. I mean, they often can’t even jail executives for criminal decisions or negligence.
In Elon’s case, I do believe governments around the world are going to have to adapt to protect their citizens from popular, but provably false and dangerous propaganda, as well as protect their privacy in the EU’s case.
Also, I agree, we both aren’t lawmakers. So for now I will just have to cheer any attempt at adaptation, and hope that their solution is functional and passes scrutiny.
I don’t think I quite agree about governments being predatory by nature.
Well, if you look at the history you might change your mind. If you look at the Top 10 Most Politically Influential Countries, by US News, you will notice that out of the 10, at least half cannot be considered “beneficial”.
I hope we can agree that Russia (1) and China (3) are predatory. But in case you don’t believe so:
China: I shouldn’t need to link anything, but at least I’ll point to Chen Pinlin arrested for the crime of making a documentary.
We have the UAE (9) and Saudi Arabia (7), who will literally kill you for the crime of being a journalist [SA], being gay [SA], and arrest you for speaking against them [UAE]
Israel (5): I guess it depends on where you stand with the current Israel-Hamas situation. But I wouldn’t say Israel has an utopian government.
Iran (10): From numerous results from a quick Google search, I can point to Pakhshan Azizi being sentenced to death for her humanitarian work.
That’s 6/10 of the most influential governments being provably predatory against their own citizens.
I mean, they often can’t even jail executives for criminal decisions or negligence.
That’s one of the unfortunate advantages of creating companies, but I believe such protections are needed for the average citizen who wants to start their own business. Maybe you disagree.
In Elon’s case, I do believe governments around the world are going to have to adapt to protect their citizens from popular, but provably false and dangerous propaganda, as well as protect their privacy in the EU’s case.
If you must “protect” your citizens at all cost from misinformation being spread on X, then you can do what Brazil did, and just force all ISPs to block traffic to it, then fine thousands of dollars to those who get caught using a VPN to access it. This is also extremely predatory (against X and Brazil citizens), but nobody cared for some reason.
Also, I agree, we both aren’t lawmakers. So for now I will just have to cheer any attempt at adaptation, and hope that their solution is functional and passes scrutiny.
Hopefully it can be solved in a way that doesn’t harm small businesses.
I agree. They can try to change the laws, and if the majority of those with voting powers agree on a way to handle these cases while doing more good than harm, I’m sure few would complain.
But it can’t be retroactive. If you change the nature of legal protection, that should only impact actions going forward. Ex post facto laws are illegal in the US, as they should be in any country where the rule of law is to be taken seriously.
Poor comprehension of the law. LLC in the vast majority of the western world means limited liability, not absolute immunity. Owners are 100% responsible for the actions of their companies, but their liability is limited when other members of the company act without their knowledge or in bad faith, or damages are unintentional. If the damage was intentional and the actions were sanctioned and approved by ownership or leadership they are absolutely liable for the legal repercussions. Liability is limited also for multiple owners, a hedge fund cannot be held responsible for the action of a company they only own 5% of and has an indirect influence on the actions of leadership. The really important element here is that Musk is being identified as acting as primary agent, not just Twitter, and using assets and resources from his other companies. Thus, it’s not Twitter acting, it’s Musk who is acting, and then fines can be on all of his capital holdings, not just Twitter. This nuance of law is exactly according to the laws in place in the EU.
I strongly disagree. That said, I think liability protection should reduce the larger your organization gets. A mom-and-pop restaurant shouldn’t have their house get taken if their restaurant gets e-coli, but a CEO should go to jail for cutting safety spending to improve quarterly profits.
That said, if you have a legal agreement that certain assets are protected, you can’t just waive it away because you don’t like the trick they pulled. If the policy isn’t meeting the original goals, the policy should be changed, and anyone who got away with a loophole should be protected by that legal mistake, otherwise we have a system of feels instead of laws.
Give it up. Lemmy thinks “corporation” means “megacorp”, has no clue about financial dealings outside what they read in the headlines and can’t spell “LLC”.
Unironically, yes. You shouldn’t be able to shield your actions under a different corporate umbrella.
“Oh, guess we can’t fine them much because Twitter is a money pit, so they’ll get to continue breaking the law for cheap”
Nah, make the fine off of his entire net worth, make him cash in some of that stock so he can finally pay taxes and fines. Make it hurt enough for him to consider not breaking the laws of countries he wants to do business in.
Sounds good in principle, but isn’t the one of the main purposes of creating an LLC or Corporation to shield your personal assets from the company’s finances? Everyone cheers for these policies until you’re the one they’re coming for. I hope you’re as cheerful when the government wipes your personal bank account as consequence of your company’s affairs.
The problem is if we give major companies a way out, on the off chance that it might have a benefit for the little guy… those major companies end up stepping on the little guy anyway.
So why let them shield themselves from the consequences of their action?
There’s no need to give a company a “way out”. The government can be as harsh as it wants to be within the limits of the law. But as soon as you start targeting the owner when he is supposed to be financially protected by the law, there are worse consequences in the long term. No matter how much they personally fine Elon, he has infinite money, this doesn’t really hurt him and I doubt he cares since he seems more focused in helping Trump win than helping X (or himself) succeed.
Gotta ask, what would you propose that would curb Elon from willfully committing crimes as he is?
He continues to do so because he’s proven the system is broken as soon as someone is sufficiently wealthy. He fights the charges, then when that runs out he fights the amounts, and even when he does get his comeuppance to the tune of 44 billion, he’s an even bigger brat cause he finally got stood up to. Do you think that there’s a way to systematically even the playing field?
I’m not a lawmaker so I don’t know. And it hasn’t been dealt with by those who are because it’s not an easy decision. But the solution can’t possibly be allowing governments to damage the owner’s personal finances for choices at the company level. Truth is you can’t open this road for Elon Musk and never use it again, because that’s never how it goes down. If this is allowed to happen, more people will be unwilling to open businesses because the only protection that they’re supposed to have can be completely ignored by the government. Governments are as predatory as mega corporations, and neither can be given too much power. This takes away power from the companies and gives it to the government, not the average citizen.
I don’t know, and nobody else knows.
To clarify the cost of creating an LLC is a hundred bucks more or less depending on the jurisdiction. So Elon should be allowed to create “Musk Corp Oct2024 LLC” and then say or do anything under the guise of Musk Corp Oct2024 LLC, then if he’s sued or fined just declare bankruptcy and create “Musk Corp Nov2024 LLC” and do whatever he wants?
At some point you have to recognize the individual is at fault. You can’t just hide behind “Oh that wasn’t me, that was the company” or " That was Musk of SpaceX having an opinion of Musk of Tesla, they are different entities."
If someone is attempting to be genuine and truthful when it comes to personal statements, fine, we can consider the protections. But if someone is flagrant and malicious then those protections no longer apply.
Sure, and you catch them on something else, like fraud. But if it’s purely a financial failure, you bankrupt the corp and move on, because that’s how the law is structured.
If we want different results, we need different legal structures. In this case, we shouldn’t be granting liability protections in the first place if the person opening it has a history of bankruptcies or whatever. But once the liability protections are granted, they must be upheld or revoked, and if revoked, all prior actions should still be covered.
That’s how the law should work, and we can’t just waive away legal contracts because they’re inconvenient, because that violates the rule of law.
Assuming I accept your premise, the premise of the article is that the actions are not being done by the company.
The key point is that Musk is at fault, not his company.
You can’t just hide behind “the company” and do whatever you want.
At some point, as the EU is discussing, the individual is at fault.
Yes that’s how it should be. But who determines if the person is doing it on purpose or if it’s a genuine mistake? There shouldn’t be ambiguity in the law, which is why you always either end up hurting corporations, or hurting citizens. Can’t please both with objective law.
How about a governing body with systems of checks and balances? You’re pretending that laws are just out there enforcing themselves. The EU isn’t just some dude with a vendetta. It’s a large collection of people making decisions.
And in fact as a business, in order to do business in the EU, you’ve agreed that the EU has the ability to make decisions like this.
I don’t think I quite agree about governments being predatory by nature. I think they can be, have been in the past, and safeguards and checks and balances need to be there to prevent it. But generally a democratically elected government is beneficial, albeit flawed. Often reactive rather than proactive, but not commonly bloodthirsty. I mean, they often can’t even jail executives for criminal decisions or negligence.
In Elon’s case, I do believe governments around the world are going to have to adapt to protect their citizens from popular, but provably false and dangerous propaganda, as well as protect their privacy in the EU’s case.
Also, I agree, we both aren’t lawmakers. So for now I will just have to cheer any attempt at adaptation, and hope that their solution is functional and passes scrutiny.
Well, if you look at the history you might change your mind. If you look at the Top 10 Most Politically Influential Countries, by US News, you will notice that out of the 10, at least half cannot be considered “beneficial”.
I hope we can agree that Russia (1) and China (3) are predatory. But in case you don’t believe so:
We have the UAE (9) and Saudi Arabia (7), who will literally kill you for the crime of being a journalist [SA], being gay [SA], and arrest you for speaking against them [UAE]
Israel (5): I guess it depends on where you stand with the current Israel-Hamas situation. But I wouldn’t say Israel has an utopian government.
Iran (10): From numerous results from a quick Google search, I can point to Pakhshan Azizi being sentenced to death for her humanitarian work.
That’s 6/10 of the most influential governments being provably predatory against their own citizens.
That’s one of the unfortunate advantages of creating companies, but I believe such protections are needed for the average citizen who wants to start their own business. Maybe you disagree.
If you must “protect” your citizens at all cost from misinformation being spread on X, then you can do what Brazil did, and just force all ISPs to block traffic to it, then fine thousands of dollars to those who get caught using a VPN to access it. This is also extremely predatory (against X and Brazil citizens), but nobody cared for some reason.
Hopefully it can be solved in a way that doesn’t harm small businesses.
It is but it is not written in stone for all eternity. If people are abusing this law, like Musk, then it gets amended or rewritten.
I agree. They can try to change the laws, and if the majority of those with voting powers agree on a way to handle these cases while doing more good than harm, I’m sure few would complain.
But it can’t be retroactive. If you change the nature of legal protection, that should only impact actions going forward. Ex post facto laws are illegal in the US, as they should be in any country where the rule of law is to be taken seriously.
Poor comprehension of the law. LLC in the vast majority of the western world means limited liability, not absolute immunity. Owners are 100% responsible for the actions of their companies, but their liability is limited when other members of the company act without their knowledge or in bad faith, or damages are unintentional. If the damage was intentional and the actions were sanctioned and approved by ownership or leadership they are absolutely liable for the legal repercussions. Liability is limited also for multiple owners, a hedge fund cannot be held responsible for the action of a company they only own 5% of and has an indirect influence on the actions of leadership. The really important element here is that Musk is being identified as acting as primary agent, not just Twitter, and using assets and resources from his other companies. Thus, it’s not Twitter acting, it’s Musk who is acting, and then fines can be on all of his capital holdings, not just Twitter. This nuance of law is exactly according to the laws in place in the EU.
LLCs shouldn’t exist in the first place.
A companys owner should always be liable for the laws its company breaks.
I strongly disagree. That said, I think liability protection should reduce the larger your organization gets. A mom-and-pop restaurant shouldn’t have their house get taken if their restaurant gets e-coli, but a CEO should go to jail for cutting safety spending to improve quarterly profits.
That said, if you have a legal agreement that certain assets are protected, you can’t just waive it away because you don’t like the trick they pulled. If the policy isn’t meeting the original goals, the policy should be changed, and anyone who got away with a loophole should be protected by that legal mistake, otherwise we have a system of feels instead of laws.
I guess that’s your opinion.
Give it up. Lemmy thinks “corporation” means “megacorp”, has no clue about financial dealings outside what they read in the headlines and can’t spell “LLC”.
“Capitalism BAD!”, is what you should be posting.
Allowing limited liability companies to exist without requiring them to be covered by liability insurance is institutionalised market failure.