It seems "fair" that some random business owner has their place of business burned down because of the shenanigans that Johnson & Johnson is up to? The only way this can remotely be considered "fair" is if looters only set Johnson & Johnson buildings on fire, and somehow the employees working in those buildings aren't affected.
The absurdity of the looting example illustrates the absurdity of modern jurists channeling the original intent of people who died 200 years ago or selectively granting the rights of citizenship (without responsibility) to fictitious legal entities. Or in this case, playing a shell game with assets.
J&J’s officers chose to continue to sell a product that was known to be harming people. They could have stopped or limited the sale of the product and replaced it with a less hazardous version. But they chose not to. Why would the failure of the company’s board and management to manage risk be rewarded?
They probably figured they would get away with it is a similar strategy to how Phillip Morris bought Kraft Foods years ahead of litigation and spun out Altria to own the tobacco business.
1. Contrary to all the "corporations are people too" memes you see everywhere, corporations definitely do not have "the rights of citizenship".
2. If you're talking about "Citizens United v. FEC", the reason behind the ruling isn't that "corporation are people too", it's that "corporations and unions are composed of people, and the federal government can't limit speech of people just because they're in an organization".
>Or in this case, playing a shell game with assets.
In what sense is this a constitutional matter? AFAIK the reason why J&J can pull this off is due to a loophole in texas corporation law. I'm not sure whether "the original intent of people who died 200 years ago " is relevant here.
>J&J’s officers chose to continue to sell a product that was known to be harming people. They could have stopped or limited the sale of the product and replaced it with a less hazardous version. But they chose not to. Why would the failure of the company’s board and management to manage risk be rewarded?
How does this have anything to do with whether it's "fair" for "looters lighting businesses on fire or breaking windows"?
So I feel bad for a small business owner who get's affected and just see them as collateral damage in the other issue
That seems like a pretty important point to omit, don't you think? Moreover, I addressed this point in my original comment. Sure, the business loses a few million dollars in damages, but what about all the previous employees that were displaced? Were they acceptable collateral damage? What about "large businesses" that won't engage in such behavior? Do you think they're acceptable collateral damage as well and/or that all "large businesses" would engage in such behavior?
>Keep in mind, I'm not espousing a legal doctrine here. I'm just saying that's what my gut reaction is.
Don't you think, we as a society should expect that whatever people are espousing something publicly, that they should have given thought/consideration that's above "gut reaction"?
If society wants the laws to not apply to corporations beyond some market capitalization, we'll have to explicitly write that into the laws.
Come on this is a downward spiral that we don't want to get started on right?
What's your line of reasoning here? Because we're not properly enforcing civil judgements on J&J, it's therefore "fair" for unrelated people to suffer losses, and for criminals to commit property crimes with impunity? If I pulled a gun on you right now and demanded that you hand me your phone and laptop, would you also consider that fair for the same reason?
Pretty sure threatening to shoot and shooting someone is not merely a property crime. Especially not one against a business, which seems to be critical to the context here.
A better comparison that would related to what we likely do around here would be something like "I 'hack' into your Git server and copy your source code and ransom it off." This is also criminal.
Indeed, if you want to change the scope and context, then one could argue that companies are already out there killing people, and by participating and supporting the system that upholds the companies doing that, you are therefore contributing to that killing. Meaning you are not innocent. But I wouldn't want to do that, so let's not.
Fair point. How about I burgle your house instead?