About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 1:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You are right that there are people that constructed this big corporations (such as Walmart, Microsoft or General Motors), but today corporations are not seen as entities made or run by humans (nor by the general public nor by the people employed there.). Except of Microsoft, there is no actual symbolic figure to represent the corporations or which could give the customers a lead to see the humanity in them. In the process of creating those huge corporations, the customer and the decision-maker have lost the human communication devices and can do their jobs in annonymity. This creates an articificial atmosphere that allows people to act out of their usual habits with other human beings. And this is the big problem that divides million-dollar corporations and middle-sized businesses, they have lost the contact with reality, while the latter has to deal with it every day. This might also be one of the issues that gave Ayn Rand the title of the Defender of Middle-sized business. I don't think that she would have liked those huge corporations shaped by the anonimity of their leaders and employeed. She always gave their corporations (like Taggart Transcontinental, or Rearden Metals) a name, a face and a soul. Those corporations were run by faces who would stand up for their deeds and cared to make business in person (if possible). Today, corporations (at least the really big ones, that are always equaled to those sentencens like "I defended only corporations, no humans...") don't care to possess any human values, because they can do all they want in anonimity. "If no one knows it has been me, than I can do what I want" <- This is the lesson they learned and why I always prefer the medium-sized businesses to make deals over the big corporations.

Post 1

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Size doesn't always matter, conduct does! Big or small, corporations are comprised of human beings and so they can act well or badly. I have worked for huge and small universities as well as small and very large companies and at no time did I make the stupid mistake of taking them to be anything but human organizations--they are no different from small combos versus huge orchestras, both peopled by, well, people. So, I disagree with much of the comment Max makes.

Post 2

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 4:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A disgusting example of your point, Tibor, is the remake of the movie "The Manchurian Candidate." The original was a fascinating movie, in which the villains were communists who were out to take over the American government. Guess who wants to take over the government in the politically correct remake. A corporation, of course.

Barbara

Post 3

Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 11:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'd agree with you if you'd said "business" or "organization" throughout instead of "corporation." I think there's plenty of room for criticizing an organization that seeks to avoid full responsibility for decision makers by getting limited liability through the process of incorporation.  

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 10:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tibor,

I haven't read the book Key Witness so I don't know the context of the quote. I certainly agree with you about corporations being made up of people. But, in law, a legal entity is treated as if it were an individual, except under a separate bunch of rules (corporate law).

I wonder. Was the protagonist in this book trying to make a statement despising corporations, or was he making a jaded complaint against working for people who hide behind corporate privileges to avoid personal liability so they can do bad things? If this protagonist was otherwise displaying integrity, he could have been making a tired statement against this hypocrisy and misuse of the legal system.

Still I agree with you about an antibusiness undertone. If he had changed the type of legal entity and said, "I haven’t defended an actual human being in ten years—only charity organizations...," maybe it would have lost something in popular impact.

Michael


Post 5

Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 9:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I haven't read J.J. Freedman's work, but I can comment on the wider issue.

Of course, many (perhaps most) novelists and film-makers are leftist and anti-business.  Even so there are other factors at work.

The reason corporate executives are so often used in novels and films as villains, is simple.   A vast number of people find such depictions convincing because of the common experience of so many of them working for such people. I.e. the writer is creating plausible characters.

Granted the mere fact that a business is large does not guarantee it will be managed by people of bad character, but when you observe almost without exception that that is the case, you have to wonder whether some important principle is at work.  Induction, after all, is the basic human method of reasoning.  It isn't just exposure to leftist editorials that make such depictions 'seem correct', it's living in the real world of the last 50 years.

For every Warren Buffet there are thousands of James Taggarts.  And, in real life, the latter's evil doesn't primarily consist in asking for government assistance and avoiding free-market competition.  They are, in real life, dishonorable and dishonest to nearly everyone with whom they deal.

It is because one loves Capitalism that it is appropriate to point out these instances of bad behavior and art is one very effective way of doing that.

What is needed is convincing, realistic depictions of businessmen as the good guys.  Not easy to do, but possible -- as Atlas Shrugged shows.

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 2/20, 9:04am)

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 2/20, 5:03pm)


Post 6

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 - 12:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Professor Machan,

Even sharp, free market supporters, like Michael Kelly Stuart, carry misconceptions that cast corporations in a bad light. In his post above, he said, "Was the protagonist in this book trying to make a statement despising corporations, or was he making a jaded complaint against working for people who hide behind corporate privileges to avoid personal liability so they can do bad things? If this protagonist was otherwise displaying integrity, he could have been making a tired statement against this hypocrisy and misuse of the legal system."

This is an old attack on corporations that comes from the left and is still held by many people who are otherwise supporters of Capitalism. Personal liability is not avoided by incorporation. Incorporation is a form of capitalization, of funding. If private individuals borrow money from a bank and use the money to do something that harms someone, they are liable, but the bank isn't. If those same private individuals formed a corporation, sold stock to get money, and used the money to to do something that harms someone, they are liable, but the shareholders aren't. It is best to visualize the sale of stock as equivalent to 'borrowing' funds.

And the statement about, "...so they can do bad things?" In the real world, there are only the tiniest percentage of businessmen whose motivation is to 'do bad things.' I'm quite sure that there are far fewer bad people as a percentage of successful business people than of those roaming around in the public at large.
--------------

And Jeff Perens made the comment, "Granted the mere fact that a business is large does not guarantee it will be managed by people of bad character, but when you observe almost without exception that that is the case, you have to wonder whether some important principle is at work. Induction, after all, is the basic human method of reasoning. It isn't just exposure to leftist editorials that make such depictions 'seem correct', it's living in the real world of the last 50 years."

I hardly know what to say. I've worked in large and small corporations as either an employee or a consultant for most of my life, and I have relatives and friends that occupy executive positions in corporations, and that statement is just not right. The vast majority of executives I worked with were descent human beings and NOT of bad character. Only a very small number, in my experience, had some significant character flaws.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 5/29, 12:23am)


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.