Murray Rothbard: Corporations are free market
I've noticed a disturbing leftist anti-corporation bent among several users here, going to so far as not wanting to allow corporations to exist and to wanting to allow government to control the press if the press is a corporation. And being upset that a corporation has more capital than them so that it's difficult to compete, as if they want government to socialistically force a level playing field. I find this all odd coming from supposed Ron Paul supporters.
Quoting Murray Rothbard (who Paul has a picture of on his office wall):
"It should be clear...that corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such men would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk. Thus, the government does not grant corporations a privilege of limited liability; anything announced and freely contracted for in advance is a right of a free individual, not a special privilege. It is not necessary that governments grant charters to corporations." Murray Rothbard, in Man, Economy & State http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap15d.asp
Corporations would exist with or without government charter. Government only gets in the way of forming corporations by requiring them to obtain permission from government. In true free market capitalism, there would be more corporations and government wouldn't regulate them at all. Limited liability would exist for all products because there would be writing on all products noting that if you are not allowed to use the product unless you agree to the stipulations. You can only stop the existence of corporations and limited liability by government control, interference with contract, reduction of freedom. I don't think Ron Paul would approve.
When you can find
a corporation that isn't incorporated under some gov't charter, please let us know.
In the meantime, you're supporting statism by supporting corporations.
You're beginning to sound like the anarchists.
"In MY utopia, things would be like THIS!"
What Leftist Bent? You're Creating A Strawman
Ron Paul (along with most other libertarians, including Dr. Rothbard himself) does not attack the CONCEPT of corporations. What all of us DO object to is the large corporations buying politicians in order to hijack government for the purpose of serving special interests in SUBVERSION of free enterprise.
Got it?
_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels
_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels
The only real straw man was
The only real straw man was his use of the word "leftist". If a leftist saw the posts in this thread by even the anti-corporate posters they would probably have a heart attack, lol.
Ventura 2012
Read comments
Clearly there are users on this site that oppose more than that. They oppose the very existence of corporations, and claim government creates them, oppose that they be allowed the rights of "personhood," opposed limited liability, and believe that government should be allowed to regulate them including regulate the television and newspaper news.
No such thing
I said no such thing. I pointed out that historically up to the present day, corporations have been creatures of government - created not by the market but by statute. Show me ANYWHERE at ANYTIME that corporations were created OTHER than by government command.
I also pointed out some of the many problems corporations, in their government-created form, cause.
I also disagree with the theory that corporations like we have now would arise by themselves in a free market. But that is easy enough to prove. Stop government from creating them and forcing us to recognize them. Then see if they arise on their own.
I never said government should regulate them. I just said government shouldn't create them. If they can organize and operate in a free society where people are not forced to recognize imaginary human beings, and where living human beings are required to take full responsibility for their own actions unless they clearly contract out of them, so be it. But it will not happen.
liar
no one, not one has said corporations should not exist nor that they should be regulated. everyone on this of the "debate" has clearly stated opposition to giving any organization special rights that exceed the rights of the individuals involved. that means eliminating personhood and limited liability. period. corps as they exist today are created with regulation, not the other way around.
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
Eat your words and don't call me a liar.
Here's proof:
I asked in another thread: "Does anyone here support government regulating
corporations? Let's get straight to the issue. That's the stated reason for this legal action, is to make "democratically enacted regulation of corporations" legal. (Otherwise known as socialism) Is that what people here who support this legal action are in favor of? Are you standing with "Democracy Unlimited" who filed the brief?"
Here's a reply I got: "Yes they have to because corporations enjoy a privilege that other forms of business do not..."
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/104458?page=2
Why else would someone oppose corporations having the right of Free Speech and Press? So they will be open to having their speech and controlled by the government.
Someone also said all corporations should be eliminated. Should I find that too to copy and paste or are you going to withdraw the false and rude accusation?
no.
taking statements out of context does not prove you are telling the truth. it merely proves you are willing to twist your opponents statements.
corporations should not have free speech. the individuals within them do. since regulations create corporations then they can be tightened or loosened. businesses should not be regulated. but in your mind the only kind of business that exists is an llc Corp.
the regulations that a Corp adheres to are in exchange for special rights handed out by the gov. they don't want to deal with them, then they can own a limited patbership and be liabel for their damages.
Here is the full statement in context:
"Yes they have to because corporations enjoy a privilege that
On October 21st, 2009 samadamscw says:
other forms of business do not.
If you are not operating a corporation, then the common law puts you on a level playing field with everyone else and you are treated as an individual. You are free to pool resources, and get together with others and conduct business, but you are all treated equally as individuals."
This in no way implies regulation for business. This statement a limiting to the rights enjoyed by a corporation, that are above that of the individual.
So, yes, you are a liar.
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
At much risk I must input ....
Individual's thoughts are always incomplete but one must realize the basic theme here at dp.
Wolf's basic implications are correct.
You seem to be attacking on a technicality.
I must also admit that Wolf did attack as well ...
and he should admit defeat on this one, single reply.
Humility grows movements.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
Here's a compementary vedio to go along with this thread.
Life Inc - How the World Became a Corporation
Posted October 23rd, 2009 by legalizeliberty
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/111822
And never forget, “Humans, despite our artistic pretensions, our sophistication and many accomplishments, owe the fact of our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”
is government without the use of 'force' ever possible?
From reading more of Octobox's comments, it becomes clear that Rothbardian theory of property rights without 'gov force' aka gansterism is the key. That in itself is an oxymoron; because how can anyone have rights without 'force' or punishment without 'force'.
To me, it seems that there is just no absolute perfect answer. I'm still not 100% clear on the Mises theory of how property rights are enforced; the amount of government increases or decreases based upon the consumer.
It would seem that the local level has most of the answers - the local sheriff must be able to enforce the law using force. So the key here is how do we create a line in the sand where force, personal and property rights are balanced? Obviously, the government must also not be exempt like a corporation of any personal responsibility.
There is a difference between a mistake, intentional negligence and fraud and nepotism. It would seem to me that certain laws, protocols, transparency or temporary jurys would need to be put into place at the government to deal with these things listed above.
Unfortunately there is no answer between government and property rights; the nature of government will always consume more from individuals to the point of destroying all rights to property and labor. It would seem that Jefferson probably had this right; that a revolution is a good thing now and then to restore the balance.
-------------------------------------------------------
Peace, Freedom and Prosperity. Not War, Welfare and Bankruptcy.
------------
-------------------------------------------------------
Peace, Freedom and Prosperity. Not War, Welfare and Bankruptcy.
------------
Sambachico: Well said
"....there is no answer between government and property rights"
We need a Mises fish eating a Rothbard "little fish" T-shirt with that slogan written on it.
Hahahahaha.
Jefferson had it right only in so much that he could not see the consumer solution to what was a perpetual war.
Rothbard would build a "slow rise " war -- Whereas the Founders built a "fast rise" to war.
No one seems to understand that Mises had it right and I'm building off of it by saying; Consumer-Meritocracy (Minarchism) with a slow transition into Consumer-Individual with ZERO Rights for Workers or Property Owners in both models.
Rothbardians would "see this" if they would just meditate on a free-society and understand that there is no wealth in property ownership (in the medium to long-run) -- This is includes all forms of property; including the Marxist argument regarding the "means of production."
For Propertarians to "get their way" -- there must be ZERO rights to Workers Unions -AND- ZERO Comparative Advantage between Businesses
For Marxists to "get their way" -- there must be ZERO rights to Owners-Unions (Lobbyist) -AND- ZERO Comparative Advantages between Workers (foreign or domestic); meaning don't tax Businesses on American Workers creating a "rent" so Illegals can worker under.
The ONLY MODEL to give them both "their way" is Consumer-Individualism, by-way of Consumer-Minarchism, by-way of Counter-Economics.
Short Version: There must be No Voting (No Abdication of Self-Rule and No Theft of Self-Rule) and No Lobbying (The Selling/Purchasing of Votes)
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
VERY interesting.
Damn, I need to finish the book I'm on so I can get crackin' on Mises.
This is one of the best threads i've ever read here.
Because these small differences are actually quite drastic between the Rothbardian view and Mises view in terms of the outcome.
Thanks to Octobox and others who have made this thread one of my favorites in quite some time.
-------------------------------------------------------
Peace, Freedom and Prosperity. Not War, Welfare and Bankruptcy.
------------
-------------------------------------------------------
Peace, Freedom and Prosperity. Not War, Welfare and Bankruptcy.
------------
there is NOTHING WRONG with Corporations!
whats wrong is that some how they have protection under the 14th amendment as "individuals" when this changes, all issues with corporations will disapear.
the Power structure of the US should look (based on the founding fathers ideals) like this:
CREATOR
INDIVIDUAL
Constitution
Government
Corporation(s)
notice who is under who? corporations have too much power and need to be slapped down to their proper place.
this is NOT to say that they are inherantly bad, just currently operating incorrectly.
“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato
“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato
TargeT: Your heart is in the right place
"corporations have too much power"
Limitations of power-seeking create the "rents" or "laws" that are to be circumvented -- which begets politicians and lobbyist in the first place.
I do believe, however, we need a Consumer-Minarchism which would require a Constitution that puts as much power in the hands of the Consumer and balances perfectly worker-rights and owners-rights while we transition slowly to Consumer-Indvidualism.
Your order of importance should exclude the "creator" since he can't be "proven" to all individuals within a society -- it's an individual-belief thus the opposite in a free-society must be protected; individual-non-belief.
Individual is the Consumer -- Severly Limited Gov't (no voting and no lobbying) -- a meritocracy. All rights go to consumer (no worker or owner's rights).
The "gov't" should have oversight over Army and Air Force (State Level) and over the Navy (central level) -- Gov't should be in charge of paying off Foreign Debt (temporary gov't). Thus 3 types of gov't.
They should be "hired" by committee like one would hire a management team: A competitive B-Plan and Presentation. By "merit" -- thus Meritocracy.
They get 1-term (6-years) and they are out.
I've spelled this out in other threads with a lot of detail.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
The problem isn't just with personhood, but more importantly
with the limited liability issue with respect to the owners. In fact, it was this limited liability nature and the attempt to preserve it in court that led to the "recognizing" of fictional entities as "persons" under the law. You could overturn those bad Supreme Court decisions and you would eventually end up right where we are now. That's because you didn't solve the problem that led to corporate personhood in the first place.
Yes
AND the separation of responsibility, management, and ownership into three different parts. The result is management that is short-sighted, reckless, and unconcerned about employee loyalty, customer satisfaction, and the health of the community.
AND the fact that corporations are immortal and can issue unlimited amounts of stock they can use like money to buy assets. This allows them an almost unlimited ability to accumulate property and hold it forever. Real human beings can't do that.
What is wrong with "immortal" businesses?
You against the right of transfer of property? And what is wrong with being allowed to issue unlimited amount of stock. And what is wrong with allowing accumulation of property and hold it indefinitely? You're making arguments that normally come from socialists.
And what do you mean real human beings can't do this?
Okay
Real human beings die in 100 years or less. Corporations never die. Understand?
When real humans die, their property moves into new hands. It goes back into the market where the market can direct it to its highest use. Corporations can hold property forever, keeping it perpetually stalled in uses that are not serving the public. It was for this reason that common law frowned on any legal construct that made property inalienable. That was the reason for the Rule against Perpetutities that prevents people from tying up property indefinitely with their wills. But corporations escape this because they never die.
The natural lifespan of a human being puts a limit on how much property they can accumulate and hold off the market. Corporations, that are immortal, have no such limitation. They can just keep getting bigger and bigger.
The problem with the issuance of stock is that corporations can use it like money to buy up other businesses and assets in a kind of pyramid scheme. They pay for the new business with stock instead of cash. It dilutes the value of existing shares and "pays" with prosepective profits. This was how the giant conglomerates formed in the 60's and 70's.
I am not arguing AGAINST the transfer of property. I am arguing AGAINST tying up ownership of property in the hands of an IMAGINARY person thereby keeping it out of the hands of real people.
I'm not sure how being opposed to the government creation of imaginary people makes me a socialist. On the contrary, I don't understand why any advocate of freedom would argue in favor of government creating imaginary people to shield real people from responsibility.
Agreed Acala! Last two paragraphs are golden
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Well said Acala
I especially like the last two paragraphs.
In a Corporatist Society (poor and middle class) must hustle
In a free-society only the rich must hustle -- because the poor are savors and low risk investors (owing to strong currency value).
Therefore the "rich" do not hold long positions in "corporations"
A corporation forms to grow -AND- protect assets -- There is a "trust" in management to do this.
In a Corporatist Society "protection" is Lobbied or Voted upon.
In a Free-Society the wealthy only have two REAL profit drivers: Entrepreneurialism and Intrapreneurialism.
There are no patents/copyrights (ZERO barries to entry) so it is not wise to hold medium to long run positions -- they must "hustle" (stay liquid).
Now the poor and middle income might hold a corporate "stock" position, but I doubt it. Their money is safer in currency / savings (so the rich can "borrow").
A corporation also seeks to maximize profit-labor ratios -- usually the highest cost. In a free-society all labor (given no protections) are sub-contractors. The best labor will desire to stay "mobile" (on short contracts) -- they will switch jobs as fast as the wealthy short-run invest in start-ups.
Heavy emphasis will be placed on Exit Strategies and Claw Back Mechanisms (more the former than the latter) for the wealthy man's decision tree.
ONLY Mises' model predicts this
The Propertarian Rothbard is off in la-la land trying to get the capitalist to join the free-market bandwagon.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Thanks OctoBox
I was not aware of this dissension in the Austrian ranks until now. I knew Rothbard and Mises did not see eye to eye, and it is clearer why. I'll have to look into the Mises works you point out and into this idea of "propertarian" thought. That's a new term on me, though I may already understand what its about.
Sam: There are papers written on this subject
Mises on Profit Loss
Consumer Sovereignty: the Key to Mises’s Economics
J. Patrick Gunning (Mises vs Rothbard)
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Thanks a million!
Here's a virtual pint of ale for ya!
Rothbard is a Propertarian -- Mises was a Consumer-Individualist
Both advocated "free-markets" however ONLY MISES' idea of a free-market is possible.
Mises also, like RP, advocated a Minarchist transition -- which would give time to settle property disputes and remove all power (voting - lobbying) from Workers and Owners.
In a Rothbardian world "somehow" you are able to have "enforceable" property rights and 100% voluntarism, how the Propertarians ignore this issue as if the contradition does not exist is beyond me.
I've debated this with Mises Institute scholars who are Rothbardians and they can never answer it.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
"In a Rothbardian world
"In a Rothbardian world "somehow" you are able to have "enforceable" property rights and 100% voluntarism, how the Propertarians ignore this issue as if the contradition does not exist is beyond me."
YES you are so right. I have pointed out this contradiction many times on debates here and all I get is "well, then that isnt anarchism" with no attempt to explain. I'd be interested to see what you have said on the issue here and maybe in the past at the mises forums, if possible. I disagree with you on some points, but I do like your critiques of Rothbardianism and ability to differentiate between Mises and Rothbard.
Ventura 2012
Bmore: You have it right (it's a matter of language to convince
We have talked about this before.
I believe like Mises and RP that we must go through (some form) of Minarchism prior to entering a 100% Abdication-Free Society.
RP quotes Mises far far more than Rothbard and when he quotes Rothbard it's where the latter agrees with Mises (the over-lap).
I believe RP to be a Misesian Scholar -- for the most part I am as well.
If we start from a Misesian basis and really meditate deeply on the day-to-day extended to the Nth degree then we will be able to formulate a functioning society based on Consumer-Minarchism then Consumer-Individualism.
It is very important that we do this as we attempt to End the Fed -- because logical people like your self will get hung-up with the Propertarian view and if we can't make logical sense of it we leave people with a perilous view of American Indiviaualism as a whole.
Consumer-Individualism is pleasing to Voluntary-Capitalist (who fear Worker-Unions) and Voluntary-Marxist (who fear Economic-Fuedalism and Economic-Fascism; or as RP calls it "Corporatism"); pleasing once we are able to articulate it concisely.
You can find any or all of my post on Counter-Economics, Consumer-Minarchism, Consumer-Individualism by using those terms in the DP search feature -- since I coined those phrases here on DP.
The Propertarian-Capitalist (Rothbardians) get hung up on who the individual is -- they all know owing to the basic tenants of Anarchism that to be "free" we must have "voluntarism." Their mistake is they do not see how "property rights" (laws) need a force-organization (gov't - gangsterism) to be the port-of-last-call (the final decision makers) and that in the latter's very creation they create (voting and lobbying) the destruction of voluntarism. They can't argue past that point so they take to yelling or absolutist statements, which is my very argument against Rothbard (his philosophy begins in freedom and advances towards Corporatism).
Now the Marxists (rightly) get hung up on Capitalism because of the above -- so their "unionize" and further corporatism (economic-fascism) un-wittingly (stupidly).
Consumer-Individualism gives Workers and Capitalist liberty by giving them no rights -- let them protect 100% of their business / work cycles. The latter in turn gives 100% freedom to consumers (who are workers or owners in their greetest free-will portion of their life).
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
"The Propertarian-Capitalist
"The Propertarian-Capitalist (Rothbardians) get hung up on who the individual is -- they all know owing to the basic tenants of Anarchism that to be "free" we must have "voluntarism." Their mistake is they do not see how "property rights" (laws) need a force-organization (gov't - gangsterism) to be the port-of-last-call (the final decision makers) and that in the latter's very creation they create (voting and lobbying) the destruction of voluntarism. They can't argue past that point so they take to yelling or absolutist statements, which is my very argument against Rothbard (his philosophy begins in freedom and advances towards Corporatism)."
YES. I am wondering how you arrived at this conclusion? Personally, I arrived at it through an analysis of their proposed anarchist communities and institutions, recognizing the flaws.
I am also a Misesian. Mises was an economist, Rothbard was a political scientist.
Ventura 2012