8 votes

Are Corporations good for liberty?

The definition of a Corporation:

A legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners. Corporations enjoy most of the rights and responsibilities that an individual possesses; that is, a corporation has the right to enter into contracts, loan and borrow money, sue and be sued, hire employees, own assets and pay taxes.

The most important aspect of a corporation is limited liability. That is, shareholders have the right to participate in the profits, through dividends and/or the appreciation of stock, but are not held personally liable for the company's debts. (from www.investopedia.com)

I bring up the question if Corporations are good for liberty, because it seems to take away some personal responsiblity. Corporations get taxed, send lobbyist to DC to get tax breaks, or even deals, and as a result we have corporatism, which is also bad for liberty. I am interested in others thoughts and input on this issue.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

No.

Corporations allow people to do things with zero accountability. If something goes wrong - the corporation did it.

You can't hang a corporation. (Not that I'm pro-death penalty or anything cuz I'm not.)

Ron Paul on Corporate Personhood

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-xFexgH76g

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Anonymous
http://youtu.be/cjkvC9qr0cc

Generally not.

Well, they certainly don't do much to *help* liberty. And why would they? They are not founded for such purposes.

Corporations would be just fine if they existed / were regulated in the way in which our early Founders had intended; however, the establishment of "corporate personhood" has been a disaster.

(Some great comments here, dudes and dudettes! I love the DP: always a bunch of smarty pants from which to learn about kewl stuff!)

Fun links:
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history...
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-personhood/

What would the Founders do?

Who founded "Joint Stock Companies " in the American Colonies?

Joint-Stock Companies and Noble Second Sons

Who led these English COLONIAL EXPEDITIONS? Often, these leaders were second sons from noble families. Under English law, only the first-born male could inherit property. As such, Sir Francis Drake, Sir Walter Raleigh, and Sir Humphrey Gilbert were all second sons with a thirst to find their own riches....

Merchants who dissented from the Church of England were also willing investors in New World colonies....

This starkly contrasted with Spanish and French settlements....

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Corporations are "Legal Fiction" - Limited Liability.

Corporations are "Legal Fiction" - Limited Liability.

They can pretend to be a "Legal Person" with a "Factious Name Certificate" & sell stock & bond of their "Legal Fiction."

They came about centuries ago. Remember American history about:

  • American Colonies such as Massachusetts Bay Colony

The joint-stock company was the forerunner of the modern corporation. Colony & Charter are forerunners of the joint-stock company. Somewhere, royalty caught on to this racket. Royalty started granting charters specifying privileges & royalties. Limiting liabilities.

    "As the city of London filled to capacity in 1600, Richard Hakluyt suggested to Queen Elizabeth that settlements in the New World might relieve the city of some of its poorer folks."

    REASONS OR MOTIVES for the raising of a PUBLIC STOCK to be employed for the peopling and discovering of such countries as may be found most convenient for the supply of those defects which this Realm of England most requires [the following]:

    8. Where colonies are founded for a public-weal, they may continue in better obedience and become more industrious than where private men are absolute backers of a voyage. Men of better behavior and quality will engage themselves in a public service, which carries more reputation with it, than a private, which is for the most part ignominious in the end, because it is presumed to aim at a profit and is subject to rivalry, fraud, and envy, and when it is at the greatest height of fortune can hardly be tolerated because of the jealousy of the state.

    – Richard Hakluyt, "Reasons for Raising a Fund to Settle America On the Value of Colonies to England" (January 5, 1607)

http://www.ushistory.org/us/2b.asp

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

If government was not the

If government was not the size that it is, corporations would not be as powerful as they are. The revolving door bridging public and private is constantly spinning. Government is force, with less of it the corporations being protected by it would not have that edge. They would be left to compete in a free market. The counter argument to this may be that of monolithic companies controlling things by force any way, like the old railroad and oil companies did. What's better though: going against a big company with government protection, or just a big company? The founding father's saw the right to sue and contract law as a powerful way to protect one self without the burden of government regulation trying to do the same thing. This takes a very honest and principled judicial system, one that has been extremely eroded over the decades.

I think a lot of it has to do with where the big money is flowing. Everything I just mentioned above can be compromised with people with fat coffers. Keeping that kind of power in check is a much more difficult proposition imo.

Corporations that succeed on

Corporations that succeed on their own merits = good.

Corporations that succeed because of government hand outs, bailouts, corporate welfare = bad.

Simple.

Nice words. Oft recited.

Corporations are granted charters.

  • "Legal Fiction." "Fictitious Name Certificate."
  • Limited liability. Immunity. (also see: Vaccines, incorporation of ~).
  • Rights. Privileges. Tax preferences. All from the said same government.

    Handouts, bailouts, & corporate welfare sold separately. See you better business bureau for details. Bribes, extortion, pandering not included.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

limited liability

The limited liability issue is not a problem because when you decide to do business with them, you know in advance that you can't sue the owner personally.

You're agreeing in advance of the exchange/contract to the terms that if there is any problem, your recourse is limited.

On the other hand, tax preferences, bailouts, etc. are not voluntary.

In the example of vaccines, you agree in advance that if you take the shot and you get sick, you waive your right to sue. This is a completely voluntary arrangement.

Non the less, "Legal Fiction. Ignoring inalienable rights.

"The limited liability issue is not a problem because when you decide to do business with them, you know in advance that you can't sue the owner personally" - Limelemon

What if you seek to hold a person within a corporation to account?

How is it we so oft... so willingly give up our inalienable rights?
Do we really give up our inalienable rights with the passage of any blame free law? Settlement?

Folks may review the court records to see how our courts have treated these matters over the last 4 centuries in English law. Folks are not expecting corporations to dissolve. Nor to willingly accept personal responsibility. Not even corporate officers. I do strongly believe in self integrity & being responsible for my action. But, that is just me... Apparently. [Crowd slowly gathers]

    "Reasons for Raising a Fund to Settle America On the Value of Colonies to England" By Richard Hakluyt, January 5, 1607

    REASONS OR MOTIVES for the raising of a PUBLIC STOCK to be employed for the peopling and discovering of such countries as may be found most convenient for the supply of those defects which this Realm of England most requires [the following]:
    ...
    Reason 8. Where colonies are founded for a public-weal, they may continue in better obedience and become more industrious than where private men are absolute backers of a voyage. Men of better behavior and quality will engage themselves in a public service, which carries more reputation with it, than a private, which is for the most part ignominious in the end, because it is presumed to aim at a profit and is subject to rivalry, fraud, and envy, and when it is at the greatest height of fortune can hardly be tolerated because of the jealousy of the state.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Knowledge update:

inalienable - you can voluntarily give up your rights.

unalienable - under no condition can you lose/give up your rights.

Inalienable is what the corptocracy wants you to have so that you can consent to voluntary servitude - which is not against the corporate by-laws aka "Constitution of the United States" - 13th amendment.

Of course the entire concept of voluntary servitude is just a massive can of worms since you should have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as it harms nobody else or infringes on their rights.

So begrudgingly I support "voluntary servitude" since to say I don't and then say I support freedom would be contradictory.

corps

The problem is that corp status is given out like business permits.

Corp status should be given out on limited basis after through review.

This whole charade is also backed by these corp lawyers who obviously need corps being created assembly line style.

donvino

Our Queen is otherwise engaged in parades & cerimonties

Sir Donvino,

Her Majesty does not court visitors while she plays charades. I'm sorry.

You many schedule an appointment with her lower courts. Perhaps you may find a circuit court convenient to your village. You will have standing there. The bench is reserved for magistrates, a civil officer charged with the administration of the law. Minor judicial officer, as a justice of the peace or the judge of a police court, having jurisdiction to try ... But, I digress. Sitting is limited. Arrive early. A court jester may be summoned & appointed to you upon request.

In service of the Queen.

Court Reporter

Who ran "Joint Stock Companies " in the American Colonies? Mark Twain, 11/30/2012

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Thanks

I have learned more.

Yet, the corps should be subject to the common law imo. ie. larceny, etc.

I understand the the British struggles between the maritime/admirality courts and common law courts.

Maritime courts should be used on incidents on the high seas only.

ie. land based ports with terms such as 'port of entry' should not be acceptable.

I drove truck before, with the terminology you would think I was a ship hand lol

donvino

We are making progress. Weigh anchor!

By jove, you got it. [Wave. Return to Pilot's nest]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcUS64MeSEA 1 minute workout praised.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

There has to be another way to organize

Incorporation, as a principle of social organization - people submitting their will to a great scheme of productive effort - ought to be limited (economically) to the enterprise in particular.

That is to say, there is a demand for shirts. A group of people organize, in terms of capital and labor, to produce shirts then sell them. The demand is met, the corporation disbands. This is in a period of time T.

Now, demand can be constant. Supply can create demand, corporations can create demand and so economic productivity can result from a corporation trying to 'exist for its own sake'.

Seriously. Hostess shut down, why shouldn't McDonald's eventually, once people decide it's patently unhealthy and won't eat there. Why is it not okay for corporations to die when their enterprise has met its end?

But again, on the other hand, industrial enterprise requires infrastructure and layers of production. Acquiring, building new machines for a project, would inspire a corporation to keep that inventory of machines to extract further value out of the investment of building them.

So what if the machines, the labor (physical, intellectual, organizational), the capital, the services (marketing, HR) were all contracted out to micro-corporate entities.

A business would work like a movie. A 'producer' or CEO hires different managers, different art studios, works with a 'studio' (which owns the machines), to produce a 'run' of goods like how a movie is produced.

In the age of telecommunication, modular equipment, and so forth, this could be possible. I know it would create such a versatile market that wealth would explode, as would equality. CEOs could still demand a fortune in salary, but far less than they get now.

The question is, what is a legal foundation for this type of organization, and how does it follow organically from principles of liberty and economics?

Perhaps if our financial system was built around goods ownership and labor contract, rather than an arbitrary medium of exchange, this would happen naturally.

I mean something like traded certificates redeemable for specific goods in inventory. Labor contracts which can be traded. So an architect can sell you his man-hours for your corn even if you don't require his services, because you can trade them.

Large financial institutions would basket these certificates transparently to form currency notes of even greater utility. Similar institutions would issue the notes for, say, the architect. He couldn't himself, but if NewBank issued his notes they'd be trusted. Everyone knows NewBank thoroughly vets their clients' abilities, determines a proper issue of man-hour certificate given the professional's actual working habits and schedule.

Rating agencies could give value to certificates. An architects, engineers, and city planners' ratings office could rack, stack, rank and rate different professionals according to the quality of their work. While NewBank issues certificates based on quantitative work capability, NewBank offers to stamp said certificates with the AEC ratings office score which can increase the value of the certificate.

Assuming robotic workers and an advanced economy, actual man hours of labor for all would be few. A person could trade their potential to work for value without certificates necessarily being cashed. Imagine what this would do for emergency workers?

A corporate project would be nothing more than a massive financial transaction. See, labor itself won't be certified per se, only professional labor, or labor of a specific nature. A ditch digger can go spend 4 hours and get ditch dug certified, and that stamp will allow PeoplesBank to issue the digger digging certificates. These can then be traded. Someone who needs diggers will contract a labor organizer who trades for digging certificates and redeems them. PeoplesBank issuance of digging certificates specifies a 24 hour warning period before initial redemption. The PB notes are redeemed with PeoplesBank which then contacts the ditch digger with the contract to be completed. If the ditch digger fails to show, or falls sick, etc., his PeoplesBank recalls the certificates.

Whole agencies could keep track of voided certificates as a service. In a fully employed economy, even the lazy find work. A guy that doesn't show for a contract won't necessarily have his certificates voided, but his 'rating' will fall tremendously.

In a fully employed economy, one can imagine competition for labor, incredible projects of vast scale and flowing money. A company might find it worthwhile to pay the cost for labor certificates of people who have a 50% chance of not showing. Granted, with a bad rating, one's certificates are worth little.

In fact, under this system, there is no wage. The employer does not pay the employee, only trades for certificates and redeems them. The value of the labor is gained by the laborer upon the issuance of the credit.

Anyway, I think that's the best way to do money. Not gold and silver. This system is dynamic, fair, representative of real value, provides maximum versatility, and retains as much wealth as possible in the hands of those who created it.

Cheap labor will still be cheap labor, but the power of originating value lies with the laborer, not the capitalist. So value trickles up from the base to the top, rather than down. This is the economic equivalent of innocent until proven guilty (banker loans being guilty until innocent). But the capitalist still has the advantage!

Anyone who can organize people in such a complex system, trade well by proper analysis of the value of different goods and services, and anticipate in a visionary sense the new value created by an enterprise, would deserve the lion's share of profits.

Government's role in this business would be only to ensure transparency and persecute clear fraud. A laborer who lied about working would not receive government action, the market would punish his failure. A business that inflated its certificates or marketed their product above its actual quality - no action from government. An outright lie - trading for 50 certificates and getting 25 - trading a certificate that claims to represent a labor contract when the party providing labor never agreed to such a contract - this would be accompanied PERHAPS by action from government.

As the vast majority of wealth will be produced through this system, there will be room for informal wealth as well. The complexity of this system leaves room for traditional barter in community and small settings where the transaction costs would be too high. Babysitting, food sharing, flea markets, etc. This would necessarily foster a great spirit of cooperation because of the surplus of informal wealth and the lack of one overarching medium of exchange. If money is segmented according to use and market, there is no 'dollar' or 'gold', 'peso' or 'pound'. Without any cheap easy universal medium informal wealth would be expensive to trade other than through barter or general exchange of goodwill. Cooperation would be economical.

On the other hand, complex, industrial projects and interchanges in society are well served by this complex money system.

Okay, enough of that, chew on it people as I do. Bed time for sure!

Okay one more thing

Insurance would disappear under this system. It would be priced into the market.

For example: emergency workers. They live off trading their potential to save lives in an emergency whether they are called up or not. But what happens in that emergency, what if they don't show up? How do you know their certificate is worth a darn?

Well, a ratings agency, or perhaps the issuing bank, would provide measures of assurance represented in the certificate that these workers would do the job.

For example, to get the certificate issued these workers must constantly train and test to prove their abilities, willingness to work, and so forth. This requirement is in place even if no emergency ever occurs.

If you are a company launching a satellite, measures to ensure the success of the launch - redundant features, international coordination, etc. - are priced into the launch contract.

The reason this is the case is because the good or service exist before the credit, rather than vice versa.

You don't take out a loan of certain value (as we do now) and then translate the value into real wealth. Instead, real wealth (or the presumption of such) is translated into value.

So, you have $200 million for a satellite. It gets you certain features, but it might blow up, so you buy insurance. You don't want to owe $200 million on a loan with nothing of value to show for it.

But, in the new system, your loan is a satellite with certain features. Those features presume a certain value. If there are no safety features, that presumed value will be less because of the cost of risk. Thus, your 'satellite bucks' might not trade for enough on the market, perhaps not enough to sustain the operation of the satellite. This theoretical point is what goes into a cost analysis of what features to include or not on a satellite. If the satellite does fail, nothing is owed to anyone. Yes, it might be a loss but consider what insurance does.

Insurance can only cover losses equal to true risk. If a 1 in 4 chance of failure exists, then redeeming the failure requires insurance payments of the other 3. This is a must, the only way to change this equation is to change the risk. This is done through insurance requirements (such as safety features).

In the new system, the market know 1 in 4 satellites fail, so satellite 'bucks' only retain 3/4 of the actual real value of operational satellites. The successful satellites 'pay' for the accidental failure of the 1. That's not a moral/legal determination, just a representation of holistic economic reality. The 'real' effect of insurance economically is to encourage safety measures that decrease risk. This effect occurs in the new system in the pricing of the certificates. Satellites with better safety features are worth more.

Wait, what about the launch? Okay okay. Here's how it works. The satellites produce real value, in the end, when they broadcast information in a more efficient way. So, the operational use of the satellite is how it makes money. The satellite therefore is primarily financed by issuing use certificates/contracts. Again, these are not specific - there doesn't have to be a customer lined up today, only the presumption of one.

So, investment would work very much like it already does. People have to find means of assessing the value of a project. If an enterprise issues these notes, are they ever going actually launch and operate the satellite? If it operates, will there be customers. Financial institutions will get their raison d'etre from answering these questions.

Anyway, consider the risk of not launching. That's going to be based on the CEO's rated abilities - he'll have to present his plan to the bank to get the credit. Fine, makes sense.

Now, as for the likelihood of future customers? Well, the bank can issue a 'spacebuck' which is a note back by a basket of contract certificates. It's backed in the sense that the basket is a fixed trade value for these contract certificates. 1 spacebuck equals 2 man-hours engineer, or 1 spacebuck equals 10 hours on rocket nozzle machinery. The basket is composed transparently and adjusts transparently according to a known schedule.

The satellite enterprise is issued spacebucks equal to the presumed value of their future satellite - the bank creates an equivalent number of use certificates which are published on a schedule to go into the spacebuck basket on a timeline consistent with the development and launch cycle. The enterprise finds that spacebucks provide access to all the necessary goods and services to complete the project. A few additional services aren't in the basket, but the spacebucks are exchanged for say, tvbucks, in order to launch an ad campaign to raise public awareness of this particular satellite (let's say they're trying to start a new market).

If everything goes according to plan, the satellite goes operational, and its use certificates appear in the basket at a fixed exchange rate for spacebucks (again, which adjusts periodically).

Okay, here's the conclusion. If the satellite industry faces fewer customers, the value of the spacebuck itself will fall. Therefore, if our satellite enterprise represents unexpectedly diminishing future value, then the bank doesn't lose much since only spacebucks were issued.

This way lone industries won't affect the overall price level and distort the economy. There will be some overall price levels, but they will be created out of the real values in industry rather than create the nominal values in industry.

It's plausible that people would be paid in VisaBucks which has a basket of SpaceBucks, FoodBucks, TvBucks, HousingBucks, and so forth.

Or, GOLD could trade against a basket of these bucks.

The market would determine...

Anyway, this system is very complex

Beating up on corporations is fun.

It's good, ole fashioned, populist pitchfork justice. But, would we really be a free society if Big Brother outlawed the ability of indivuduals to form corporations?

^This is weird conflation.

^This is weird conflation. That would be pitchfork populism, but abolition of incorporation is not the same as "Big Brother outlawing" free association. We can enter into shareholder agreements by contract in the way Rothbard described without being granted special privileges BY "Big Brother".

Basically

A corporation is a fictitious illusion that we grant more powers than we grant ourselves.

The phantom entity has no face or personality. Only unlimited resources to spend on lobbying and crime - and the ability to absolve itself and file bankruptcy before you can put it in handcuffs.

Articulating distinctions

I agree with MIchael that NO corporation should EVER be accorded the status of personhood. That is one of those obscure, rarely mentioned shams that go to the very reason(s) as to why elections are so corrupt.

I believe corporations can be of service to the socioeconomic well being of a nation and it's people; but only if they are PRIVATELY HELD corporations. From the moment a privately held corporation is induced to "go public," the previous owner gets lost in the shuffle and the entire paradigm of ethical operations that owner may have held are immediately supplanted with the mantra -- "we exist solely for the benefit of the stockholders;" which translates to ... in the simplest of terms: any means to an end.

Logic dictates that: Wrong action has to lead to wrong results; and right action has to lead to right results. Period. No exceptions.

Corporations are creatures of the state.

Corporations would not have legal rights were they not granted charters by governments. The early corporations were created as monopolies. In fact the Dutch East India Company, with its monopoly on trade with the Colonies, had a lot to do with inflaming the American Revolution. The Stamp Act was passed for their benefit, that corporation being owned by a number of members of the British government.

Corporations served as a means of amassing large amounts of capital, and the argument could be made that was beneficial to industrial development. Could partnerships or sole proprietorships have done the same thing is a question, but from a political point of view a large corporation or any other large non-corporate business seemingly could have wielded the same political influence.

I think the problem is not so much the form of organization, but the size and amount of wealth that a business or individual controls. Would it really matter if it is a wealthy individual or a corporation that lobbies Congress to get laws that rig the market in their favor? The reality is that wealth takes control of government, politicians are venal, and government is difficult to restrain; it always degenerates into the ruler/ruled system of plunder and control, with the few at the top gaining most of the wealth. It is only periodic uprising that tames government, and even that is temporary since any replacement government formed follows a predictable course of growth and increasing subjugation.

We are not going to restore freedom by tinkering around the edges, and conditions will likely lead us to civil war or revolution in due course.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

To summarize my good friend's post...

Corporations were extremely limited in what they could do, and HOW LONG THEY COULD EXIST, until late in the 1800's. Then is when they attained the ability to become all-powerful rather than powerful servants.

This business about them now being persons with voting power is just a slap in the face, a piss on your mom action, a demonstration of raw power.

I saw the best minds of my generation, destroyed by pandas starving hysterical naked

-Allen Ginsberg

Yes, they are good for liberty

The problems you see (crony capitalism) has to do with favors the government dishes out, not corporations, per se.

About 100 years ago, progressives were harping on about the trusts, because back then business trusts were a popular way of doing business rather than corporations (some states made it illegal for corporations to own real estate, but trusts could). The Standard Oil Trust was Rockefeller's baby, and "trust busting" was all about breaking up the perceived monopoly. This is when "anti-trust" legislation came around. Today, corporations are the preferred limited liability entity and business trusts are mostly just used for mining and real estate deals.

Artifical entities with limited liability to the owners are necessary for free market capitalism because wealthy people do not want to take unlimited risks on businesses that might not pan out.

This is different from corporate executives (or owners) getting bailed out by government tax money when their business fails, or when torts occur.

If not for limited liability to owners, how would capital be raised for risky projects?

Yes, business is necessary to a free society, and at least some of that business should be done is such a way that investors can limit their risk. Imagine if all the stockholders of Apple Computer could be held personally liable if Apple infringed on someone else's patents. Would YOU invest in such a scenario? Would your pension fund invest in such a thing? Nope.

As a case in point: There were actually THREE original creators of Apple Computer, not two. There was Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne. Most people don't know about Wayne because he was the only guy who had any money outside of the company and he got scared about what would happen if something went wrong. He figured any liabilities would come back on him. So, he sold his 10% stake for $800 and nobody ever heard from him again. Today, that 10% stake would be worth over $50 billion, making him around the richest man in the world (assuming he held 10% the whole time).

People with money are needed to take risks to make businesses go, and if they cannot limit their liability, they won't take the risks.

Corporation: liberty's limit

I read your comment half expecting that perhaps your pro-Corporation headline might not match the body, and that the body of text might actually claim Corporations to be neutral toward liberty, neither bad nor good. My half expectation was obviously unsupported. Your claim is bold, simple, and well written. As such, it is easy for me to point out where I disagree.

"Imagine if all the stockholders of Apple Computer could be held personally liable if Apple infringed on someone else's patents. Would YOU invest in such a scenario?"

YES, I would.

"People with money are needed to take risks to make businesses go, and if they cannot limit their liability, they won't take the risks."

If I wish to limit my liability I will make a low risk investment. In a free world risk and liability remain proportional. The attempt to separate risk from liability, liability from risk, is the financial alchemy that throws the initial wrench in any economic mechanism. There simply is no free lunch. A limit on liability is a limit on accountability.

Liability and risk are simply two different words that point to the same thing. The limit in limited liability simply refers to a slight transfer of liability from one individual or group to another, in the case of the Corporation - to the public at large. That's fine if everyone is aware of this, but people don't know or have forgotten. We have States and a central government that hand out corporate charters like dinner mints and fortune cookies at a Chinese restaurant. However small, those fortune cookies cost money and add to the expense of my chow mein. I don't like fortune cookies. I'd say that I'm free to eat at a Chinese restaurant that offers no 'free' cookies but for the lack of finding one.

Risk is inversely proportional to monoculture, and its lack of concentration stifles innovation, diversity, and progress. As an individual I ultimately must trust other individuals. When I shift my trust to a system, accountability is lost. Liberty without accountability is mere chaos.

Well written. Liberty mint.

Hope it sees the light of day. "Liberty Mint" or "Mint Liberty" are words that go together well.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

How to raise capital without risk

Loan money. Charge a loan fee equal to the future value of the company. Have the market determine the value of these debt instruments. Then you dont need to assume that a king can grant the nobles a reprieve from the liability of their actions to peasants.
It is an interesting question whether they create wealth. It should be studied. In my opinion externalities are a product of the corporation-- limited liability allows corporations to pollute. If externalities are factored in is there wealth net wealth creation? If so how much?

Michael Nystrom's picture

Thank you for asking.

Corporations are collectivist special interest groups. They're organized mobs. Are either of these good for liberty?

My opinion is no, they are not - not as they are currently treated by our legal system. They have the rights of individuals, but not the responsibilities.

The counter argument is that they are made of people, so they should have all same rights as people. My counter is that yes, they are made of people, but they are not people. Again, the easiest way to define them (as I said at the beginning) is as collective special interest groups. Or as mobs.

Buildings are made of bricks, but they are not bricks. Each has different properties. Mobs, as we know, have emergent properties not present in individuals. We learn this is Psych 101.

Corporations therefore should not be treated as people. They can be good for liberty, but again it goes back to the individuals who run / control the corp.

All art is only done by the individual. The individual is all you ever have, and all schools only serve to classify their members as failures. E.H.

Couldn't most of what you say apply to governments.

I see little difference between the federal government and a corporation. Both have Presidents and Boards of Directors (Congress) who operate the organization for their own benefits; both are unresponsive to their shareholders (citizens); both are collectivists special interest groups or mobs as you say; both are social irresponsible, psychopathic or sociopathic you might say.

Maybe we should do away with both, as they seem to be destructive of liberty. And consider that corporations are the spawn of governments and could not exist as they do today without their creation as entities with legal rights by charter granted by some government, and recognized by other governments.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Great comment Michael

Crony capitalism has to end.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15