Companies want rights without responsibility
Companies seem invincible these days and they are trying to obtain even greater power. US companies have gradually come to be treated as legal individuals entitled to more and more of the rights of a person. They now even argue that the right of free speech entitles them to say what they like about their products, a point put to the US Supreme Court last year. But the corporate person is a one-dimensional being that has the rights of a person but none of the responsibilities. Under limited liability company law, the owners shareholders cannot be made legally accountable, however outrageous the actions of the company they own.
This absurd state of affairs has crept up on us, as if an over-indulged child has taken more and more liberties until it is entirely out of control. Everyone wants the child to do well, no boundaries are set, and before you know it the family is at its beck and call. Usually, a few home truths, some clear rules laid down and a few tantrums are enough to restore some balance. The same approach should be used with companies. The home truths that the owners and directors of companies have forgotten are that power must come with responsibility and that, in a free society, all are equal before the law. Present company law violates both these principles. Limited liability means that the power of a company's owners is not matched by any responsibility because the law puts them beyond the reach of their fellow citizens. This immunity provides shareholders with the greatest regulatory protection granted to one section of society by the state. The owners of companies used to be content to enjoy their privilege in a society where others had the right to publicly-owned industries and services, strong trade unions and government regulation to protect consumers, the environment and the public health from business. Nowadays, companies are bent on removing the regulated protections of all sections of society except their own.
In the US, pressure groups for the corporate interest such as the Federalist Society argue that government regulations and agencies are against the fundamentals of the US constitution. In the name of the free market, they are stripping away all forms of public protection such as environmental regulations and independent scientific advice. They also argue that the wealthy owe nothing to the rest of society and that the poor should not be encouraged to remain in poverty by being given handouts. This “gimme! gimme!” approach assumes a natural right to unrestricted acquisition for shareholders and the denial of such rights to everyone else.
It is time to end the delusion that limited liability is a natural good. Allowing shareholders to be immune from the law violates everyone else's human right to be treated equally before the law. Enshrined in the American Declaration of Independence and in human rights declarations and laws ever since, equality before the law is a fundamental tenet of a free society. The way to make companies and their owners behave is to reform or abolish limited liability. Free-market advocates confronted with the flaws in their arguments usually show disbelief and reply: “You just don't understand, stupid without limited liability people won't invest and the whole economy will collapse.” Yet limited liability was only widely adopted in the industrialised world around 1900 and in California only in the 1930s, not at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Mixed and protected economies, from Germany to South Korea, have developed successfully without shareholder domination. The US and the international economies will get along nicely without it.A common-sense approach would be to replace limited liability with proportional liability supported by liability insurance. Under proportional liability, as used in early 20th-century California, major investors would carry a substantial risk while mutual fundholders and the like would have infinitesimal liability. For all shareholders, an insurance market would be developed. It is strange that while insurance is compulsory when we take a car on the road, we do not need it when we send a company out into the market.
The discussion on limited liability is just beginning. It may seem strange to us to regard limited liability as a state-regulated special interest protection and a human rights violation. But it is the truth. And it is the truth that will empower the next phase of the movement for corporate responsibility.
The writer is the author of The Beauty Queen's Guide to World Peace: Money, Power and Mayhem in the Twenty-First Century (Politico's)
企业不能只要权不担责
如今，企业看起来不仅所向披靡，而且还想获得更大的权力。美国企业已经被逐渐看成了法律个体，从而被赋予了越来越多个人享有的权利。在去年美国最高法院审理的一个案子中，它们甚至提出，言论自由赋予了它们对自己的产品想说什么就说什么的权利。然而，企业法人却是一个只享有个人权利而不承担个人义务的单向度实体。根据公司法中的有限责任原则，就算企业的行为再出格，其所有人和股东也不用在法律上承担责任。
这种荒诞的情形已经悄悄临近，仿佛一个被过分溺爱的孩子想干什么就干什么，终于有一天，父母完全失去了对它的控制。每个人都希望孩子成材，对它的行为不设界限，很快全家人对它唯命是从。要想恢复某种平衡，严肃告诫、约法三章、以及发发脾气通常都很有效。对企业也应如此。企业所有人和董事忘了这样一条逆耳忠言：有权力就有责任；在一个自由社会里，法律面前人人平等。现行公司法违背了这些原则。企业的有限责任意味着，所有人只有权力而没有责任，因为法律使其他公民对他们根本动弹不得。这种免责给了股东最大的法规保护，此等保护由国家赋予社会中的某一阶层。企业所有人曾一度对他们所享有的社会特权心满意足，在这些社会中，其他人对公有行业和服务享有权利，消费者、环境和公共健康受到强大的工会和政府管制的保护。而现在，企业一心想消除社会各部门受到的法规保护，只有它们自己的除外。
在美国，代表企业利益的压力集团，如联邦协会(Federalist Society)认为，政府法规和政府机构违反了美国宪法的根本原则。它们正以自由市场的名义扫除各种形式的公共保护，如环境法规和独立的科学意见。它们还提出，富人不亏欠社会中的其他人任何东西，也不该向穷人施以援手，因为这只会鼓励穷人不思进取。这种“给我！给我！”的取向，假定了股东享有不受约束的天赋的占有权，并以之对抗所有其他人。
是时候结束这场误会了，有限责任并不是一种天赋的特权。允许股东从法律上免责，侵犯了其他人在法律面前被平等对待的人权。《美国独立宣言》、人权宣言及相关法律无不表明，法律面前人人平等是自由社会的基石。要想规范企业及其所有人的行为，我们就必须改革或废除有限责任制。自由市场的鼓吹者在面临其论证中的漏洞时，往往表示出怀疑，他们答道：“你就是不明白，愚蠢。不实行有限责任制，人们是不会投资的，而整个经济都将垮台。”然而，有限责任制并不是工业革命爆发时的产物，它在1900年左右才被工业社会广泛采用，而在加利福尼亚，这种情况直到1930年代才出现。从德国到韩国，受保护的混合经济形式在不受股东主导的情况下，也得到了成功的发展。没有它，美国经济和国际经济也会顺利前进。一种常识方式将是，取代有限责任制，换之以由责任保险支持的按比例责任制。加利福尼亚在20世纪初时曾采用这种责任方式，根据其原则，主要的投资者将承担实质性的风险，而共同基金持有人等将承担很小的责任。一个针对所有股东的保险市场将得到发展。认真想一想，这其实是件很奇怪的事：当我们驾车上路时，我们必须要买强制性的保险，而当我们把一家企业推向市场时，却不要保险。
有关有限责任制的探讨才刚刚开了个头。把有限责任制视为国家规定的对特殊利益的保护以及对人权的侵犯，或许会使我们感到奇怪。但这是事实。而这一事实将给那些针对企业责任开展的下一阶段的行动以力量。
作者著有《选美皇后对世界和平的指导：21世纪的金钱、权力和暴力》一书(The Beauty Queen’s Guide to World Peace: Money, Power and Mayhem in the Twenty-First Century)，由Politico’s出版
