I think its not disputed that almost everyone here believes in unanimous consent rather than majority rule, at least with regard to “public” institutions. So how can this logic be applied to corporations, where many decisions are made by (super)majority vote? As a shareholder, is it fair that my share of the company can be managed by people I didn’t vote for? I suppose you could say that I should just sell my stock, but how is that different than statists saying I should just leave the “country”?
Presumably, when buying shares, you agree to whatever governing practice is specified in the charter, articles of incorporation, bylaws or wherever. It is fair because you explicitly agreed to the process. If you would prefer a corporation that only acts on unanimous shareholder votes, you may seek out such a corporation or create your own. It doesn’t sound all that efficient, though. And, of course, you are not obligated to buy shares of any corporation.
Are you really that simple to equate selling a bunch of shares of stock because you do not like the way the officers run a comany with having to leave your chosen place of residence under duress? Lets start with the situation where you own shares and live under a democratic government. The company that you own the shares can do nothing to you except make the shares leaving you out your original investment. Your govenrment can invent virtually any law and imprision you for extended periods of time for breaking it and even kill you if you resist.
Now assume you want out of your stock. The worst that can happen in selling stock is that you are out your original investment. The worst that can happen when you attempt to leave the country is that government can 1 stop you from doing so and 2 make it expensive to leave and 3 back this up by imprisionment or if you resist by death.
I see, so it’s like a homeowner’s association contract.