Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!hplabs!hplabsz!taylor
From: BACON@MTUS5.BITNET (Jeffery K. Bacon III)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Re: The Control of Information
Message-ID: <1440@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM>
Date: 19 Jan 88 21:30:18 GMT
Sender: taylor@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM
Lines: 34
Approved: taylor@hplabs

In reference to the comment by Mr. Freeman about the corner gas
stations and IBM:

My knowledge of law and such things is limited at best, to say the least.
But it seems to me that the fundamental difference you fail to see is that
IBM is a corporation, while the gas station is a proprietorship. Two
very different things.

According to the law, I do believe, a corporation can be considered as
a separate person in the eyes of the law. Thus, those that manage it
may be more inclined to take certain risks with the corporation, since
they are far less liable for their actions. The owner of the corner gas
station, on the other hand, has no such luxuries. His fate is tied in with
the station's.

This is why one might want the records of the corporation open: so that
others might keep an eye on it. If you want to keep an eye on the health
of the gas station, you can probably see it pretty well in the eyes of
the station owner.

And as for all the gas stations in conglomerate: All that you have is a
conglomerate of gas stations. Assuming there is no association of gas station
owners, there are no ties to speak of anywhere other than maybe a common
interest. And even if there is, all you have is basically a special interest
lobbying organization. To make any sort of economic entity to rival IBM
out of them, one must put them under common ownership. And then, as long
as it remains in a proprietorship, it need not be submitted to public
inspection because its interests are still tied in with the interests of
the owner(s).

I know the argument is a bit flawed; forgive me. But I hope the point
is made anyway.

JB