Re:Netflix crushed the Latin American password black market
by galdosdi on Friday October 13, 2023 @05:54PM
(#37876054)
OK, then why was it that for so long a new joint stock company's creation required a charter from the monarch or parliament, etc, and not just anybody could get it (as today)? It was obviously seen as a valuable and scarce privilege, not a right.
Choosing to bestow that privilege to anyone for any purpose they wish is a conscious tradeoff that our society makes, nothing natural about it. The upside as you keep mentioning is it's convenient to run the enterprise this way, allowing it to reach a larger scale. The downside to society is the risk that this greater power enables the creation of organizations that rival the state in power -- which is probably why originally, charters specified a limited purpose for the company.
I have not, in any of my education, come across the notion that (as OP was responding to) corporations were allowed due to a belief they would increase the net utility of society (or specifically in this case, that decreased Netflix hours watched would be a net utility objective that would’ve been in the realm of things a corporation was initially intended to be formed for).
The reasons for corporations to spread beyond royal charter to arbitrary creation by the general public had to do with lawsuit administration and limiting liability. Prior to corporations, partnerships were the primary form of organizing and when they were sued each partner had to be included separately which was cumbersome and many partners had nothing to do with the operations or activities that gave rise to the liability.
The legislation which codified the above is credited with a massive increase in company formation and capital allocation in the 1800s. The presumption being that things that were once deemed too risky when there was unlimited liability were no longer as risky.
None of what I’ve written here is “modern ideology” unless by modern you refer to the 1800s.