[DaiPlusPlus]

> If Corporations are people, and they commit felonies, maybe the US can assume control of the corp?

"Corporate death penalty" was a term people used to a use a lot.

[It turns out it's already a real-thing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution), but push-back from shareholders in response to attempts at accountability predictably led to nothing happening.

I think the response is to make shareholders more legally, and especially unescapably, responsible for the companies they jointly own. Ignorance and the fact that _no-droplet-blames-itself-for-a-flood_ should be an excuse[1].

[1] Though I do think about how this might discourage _activist investors_ that willingly buy shares of immorally/amorally-acting publicly traded companies and then attempt to steer it in the right direction - so perhaps if we could exempt voting-shareholders who can demonstrate a clear and consistent voting record in the public good to the extent that their shares permitted them to then they would escape prosecution?

[drivingmenuts]

“public good” is a highly variable term, though. While one person might argue that (example only) Palantir is the grossest public avil imaginable, another person could argue that they are a public good, on the basis of helping law enforcement.

How do you derive a legally acceptable definition of public good in investment? An evil person could invest just as much as a supposedly good person, but with the intent of making money, but otherwise be amoral about everything else related to the investment.