The definition of a corporation is as a legal construct concocted by the government. You make the mistake of confusing a corporation with a business.
When I use the word "corporation," I am referring to a joint-stock company with limited liability. Call that whatever you like, and let's discuss that. I'm not going argue with you about semantics.
Limited liability IS a special privilege granted by the government. As well as many other boons.
No, it isn't. Limited liability is a function of voluntary contracts between the parties concerned. Suppose Bob is meeting with Jones about a loan. Bob agrees to take the loan from Jones on the condition that, in the event he defaults, Jones can't take his house. Thus Bob has limited liability for the debt: i.e. there are limits on what the creditor can take from Bob in the event of default (everything but his house). This is not a "privilege," it's part of the contract voluntary accepted by both parties. It's the same with a corporation. It is part of the voluntary contract between corporation and lender that, in the event of default, liability is limited to the assets of the corporation - the assets of the stockholders are off limits. Again, this is not a privilege, both parties agree to this by contract. If a lender doesn't like contracting on these terms, he's free not to make the loan.
By your reasoning, why don't we just grant ALL businesses this special status? Why not allow anyone to avoid liability by operating their affairs as a business. Um, because it would be stupid and chaos.
No one is "granting" or "allowing" anything. Limited liability is not something bestowed magically from above. It is, as I explained, a matter of the terms of the contract between the parties concerned. As I show in my example, anyone could have limited liability. I could go down to the bank tomorrow and ask for a loan on the condition that they can't take my house if I default. They can accept that condition or not. If they do, then I've got limited liability for that debt. It's really not that complicated.
In addition, you misuse the word strawman.
No. You were pretending to criticize corporations as such, while actually all of your arguments were against government sponsorship of corporations. That's a strawman argument. To be fair, I don't think it was intentional on your part, since you don't underrated the distinction - but it was nonetheless a strawman.
"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwi