[Discuss] EOMA68 Libre Hardware Standard and Libre Software project, currently crowd-funding (deadline expires 26th aug 2016)

[Matt Maier]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Chris Church <thisdroneeatspeople at gmail.com
> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I feel you. I'm grappling with how to incorporate my own startup
>> specifically because I think a fundamental flaw in our current system is
>> that the people in charge of corporations are only allowed to consider
>> profit in their decisions. They literally, legally, due to their fiduciary
>> responsibility, cannot base their decisions on anything other than
>> maximizing the dollar value of the corporation.
>>
>>
> This meme is patently false, and should be avoided......Fiduciary
> responsibility does not mean "basing your decisions on anything other than
> maximizing the dollar value," but instead are five guiding responsibilities
> which ensure that directors/leaders/owners will provide due care in their
> leadership, basing their decisions on sound judgement of the merits and not
> put their own financial or business interests above those of the other
> members/shareholders/owners. [1]  (For example, saying "I'll give myself a
> dividend and no one else," is against their fiduciary duty, but saying,
> "Selling weapons, while profitable, is against our corporate ethics
> guidelines," is not.)
>

Maybe it's just that the meme is accurate for the market I'm in and have to
deal with most directly?
https://www.unpri.org/page/new-report-aims-to-end-debate-about-esg-and-fiduciary-duty
"Fiduciary duty has long been a contentious issue, especially in the US.
Asset managers and advisers have often cited fiduciary duty as a reason for
not incorporating [environmental, social, and governance] factors into the
investment decision-making process, claiming that looking at non-financial
indicators was not consistent with their fiduciary duty."


>
>
> [2] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/13-354.html "While it is
> certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to
> make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations
> to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so.
> For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of
> charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to
> further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives. Many examples come
> readily to mind. So long as its owners agree, a for-profit corporation may
> take costly pollution-control and energy-conservation measures that go
> beyond what the law requires."
>

Sure, but this is a lawyer writing, which means words are important. They
said "so long as its owners agree" which is such a large caveat it should
be highlighted in the neon orange or pink of a prison jumpsuit. It's
basically a tautology. As long as we state "the law doesn't forbid it" and
"all parties agree" we can enter into pretty much any contract we can dream
up. But when the owners DON'T agree, the default is to maximize dollar
value, and a lot of the time that's also what the owners want anyway.

Maybe the assumptions are different outside the US? Maybe the assumptions
are changing? That would be nice.


>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20160825/de6fc45b/attachment.html>