Saying that X couldn’t exist without government is a statement which legitimizes government as an entity which can bring to fruition things that others can not achieve.
You’re laying upon government the title of a necessary being, for government is now necessary for X to exist.
If you’re a libertarian or an anarchist, you never want to do this, not only because it’s not true, but because you undermine the very philosophy which you claim to support; one that finds government to be an unnecessary and burdensome evil.
So making the claim that ‘corporations’ could not exist without government simply because government currently oversees the formation and legalities of ‘corporations’ is no different than saying ‘roads’ could not exist without government because government currently oversees the formation and legalities of roads.
A road a tangible thing. I can make one in my backyard if I want to. A corporation is a legal construction that exists on a piece of paper. I cannot make one in my backyard. What is so hard to grasp about this?
As an anarchist, I reject all forms of external authority, including courts, churches, or whatever institutions you would suggest make laws and create corporations in a stateless society.
Governments obviously “bring to fruition things that others can not achieve”, and stating the obvious doesn’t legitimize government. You can’t have state terrorism, corporatism, politicians, corruption, taxes, eminent domain, and many other awful forms and byproducts of authoritarianism without government or the state. That doesn’t mean we need any of those things, and that doesn’t mean we need to keep the government around to ensure those things continue to exist.
I don’t know why I’m about to waste my time with this but it’s Friday and, well, tumblr.
A road is tangible, yes, but it’s only a road because people agree that it’s a road. In reality, it’s the idea of the road which is important.
A corporation doesn’t exist just on paper, it exists in practice. The paper just explains what the practice is. Just like your rights don’t exist only on the Bill of Rights, a piece of paper, they exist in practice. The Bill of Rights, a a piece of paper, just reiterates what they are.
the piece of paper is pointless other than the fact that it is evidence that an agreement was made. You can make it digital, you can video tape the agreement, you can invent a time machine and reference that specific point in time when the agreement was made by traveling back in time to revisit yourself, or anyone else, making that agreement. You can be a god with omnipresent and omniscient abilities and you will just have the knowledge of that agreement being made. Whatever it is.
What’s important here is that a corporation or agreement to incorporate is a set of rules agreed upon by all parties which govern the relationship between those parties during whatever activities described within that agreement from the point that the agreement is made until it expires or is dissolved (through whatever means it is dissolved by, where the agreement can also govern those measures as well).
The agreement doesn’t have to be a physical thing to exist. Numbers aren’t a physical thing. Words aren’t a physical thing. They exist. Sorry, not my rules, you lose, they win. End of story.
I don’t give a shit what terrible definition of “anarchy’ you ascribe to, and if you’d be so kind, stop calling yourself an anarchist (especially one that believes in free markets) until you learn what anarchism is and what the free market is.
You don’t have to believe in external authority. But being an anarchist doesn’t mean you can reject the authority of binding agreements between willing parties. That’s not “up to you”. This is not a subjective inference, this is a logic based, objective reality. If two people agree to set a group of rules to authorize their conduct, then that’s their prerogative. You, I and no one outside of that agreement has any say in the matter.
This is a simple yet fundamental pillar in the philosophy of anarchism.
This is why anarchists believe that you can agree to buy drugs from another party and a 3rd, uninvolved party has no right to dismantle that agreement.
Your last paragraph is pointless.
LIBERTARIANS ARE SAYING ALL CORPORATIONS SUCCEED BECAUSE OF THE STATE.
So… are you saying…
The state makes things succeed?
Corporations are creations of the state. Especially limited liability protectionism. Which are backed by the force of the government. Limited liability should only be enforceable between people who sign a contract not applied to everyone as if it was another “social contract.”
Does the state make them succeed? Of course not. But they definitely give them extra benefits that the individual doesn’t have.
No they are not.
Corporations can exist in a free market. Even limited liability ones.
Stop drinking the Stefan Molyneux Kool-Aid.
Contracts are between individuals. They can only be applied to those who sign them. Is that agreeable?
Corporations are just concepts in themselves. Corporations are made up between a group of individuals that contractually agree to work together to create a business.
So yes, you can I can sign a contract where I can only sue the company if I’m harmed and can’t go after you. In that instance limited liability can exist.
Please explain to me how that same contract between us applies to everyone else?
If you harm someone you don’t have a contract with why can’t they sue you personally? Why would they be limited to your company?
Just saying they can exists isn’t an argument. I can say squared circles can exists but that doesn’t make it so. Please explain the social contract for corporations that you think should exist?
Yes, you’ve figured out the contacts part. Deals between corporations are just contracts between two large groups agreeing to a set group of criteria.
When you do business with someone, you are agreeing to do business on a specific set of terms. If you’re working with a limited liability company (LLC), you agree that whatever your remedy to a breach of contract or duty is, you’re only limited to their ownership in that company and not beyond it.
You don’t need to sign a physical contract for the guarantee or caveat to be there. Just like when you purchase a ticket to a sporting game, you relinquish certain remedies or even legal rights simply by purchasing a ticket.
There’s a reason that companies that are limited liability have to include LLC ot Ltd or such in the actual name of the company.
Like if I’m making Big Money, LLC. My company name isn’t just Making Big Money. It’s the whole thing, including the LLC. It is a caveat emptor.
In a free market you might not have the ability to force companies to use that in their name but you can be diligent and find out what kind of liability limitations you’re dealing with.
If you, outside of your company, harm someone, they can take everything from you if a court deems that to be just compensation, including your house, cars and your shares of an LLC. Limited Liability isn’t a shield from all liability. It’s protection from liability of that specific company. So if you’re Bill Gates and you get drunk and kill a school bus full of kids, you’re not limited to only losing your shares of Microsoft. I’m willing to give you enough credit that you already know this much.
There’s one more loop hole that protects consumers and that’s that if an LLC is negligent at the specific direction of an owners (e.g. you ask an employee to put broken glass into the sandwiches) then protection from personal liability goes away. You can’t use an LLC to shield yourself from tort law.
I don’t know where people got this silly idea that a limited liability company somehow allows owners to do whatever they want and get away with it. It doesn’t. What does allow these people to do things and get away with it are the corrupt politicians who shield them with pardons or commuted sentences.
So, in a free market, how does one operate if all of these companies are claiming limited liability? Well, #1, you always assume the worst case scenario unless you know better. #2, you can always seek out companies who aren’t limiting their liability as a form of gaining a competitive advantage. Or #3, you can find companies and build relationships that has a mixture of liability protection.
Libertarians and anarchists who get mad about corporations and individuals not paying taxes…
I mean, guys, come on. That’s like a prisoner getting mad when someone escapes. Isn’t the goal for none of us to pay these ridiculous taxes?
You’re ignoring the consequences this situation has on the power of the consumer in the marketplace. Consumers have to pay their taxes, which in fact subsidize many of these corporations and allow them to even profit from tax season. They then have less spending money and some of their money is being forcibly removed to support corporations they might not otherwise want to be thriving in the marketplace. It’s complete abuse of state power to force consumers to essentially support businesses they otherwise might not. And regardless of how you feel about either group being taxed, taxing one and not the other gives the latter more financial security and power.
I would rather no one paid taxes and I’m not focusing my efforts on trying to get corporations to pay them either (I just want total separation of business from government in every way possible.) But we can still acknowledge the consequences of forcing a populace to pay taxes while allowing businesses to receive taxpayer funds and not pay anything. The solution isn’t to make them pay taxes, but to stop giving them subsidies to artificially grow their power and to stop forcing the consumers to pay taxes that limit their own financial ability.
You just used a lot of words to go in a circle, starting with trying to disagree with me without actually disagreeing with me and concluding that you don’t disagree with me despite initially disagreeing with me and that you agree with me.
Why? Why waste two long paragraphs on that?
Yes, I know what the consequences of selective exemptions is. I know what taxation does. I know how the system works. I just don’t think that we should be getting angry when it happens. We should embrace it, celebrate it and then ask for the same exact treatment.
Instead people have and adverse reaction. They see the tax breaks and yell and scream for these people to get taxed just like the rest of us. Why? If you broke your leg, would you go around smashing other people’s legs? No, that’s silly, violent and unethical.
What if you were born with a bum leg and so was everyone else. No one could run and most could barely walk. And then one day, one person figured out how to fix his legs and he could run, jump, do marvelous things. He ran circles around all of us. Then, over time a couple of others also learned how to fix their legs. And they looked as fluid and as mystical as the first man. So much so that it made you angry that your legs lacked the ability to do what these very few could. Would you then set out to smash their legs and bring them back to the world of the many, or would you set out to fix your legs and unlock the fantastical potential that you had gazed upon previously?
These corporations have figured out a way to un-rig the game for themselves. They are only playing within the game’s rules. You want to achieve equal status with them, then you must either follow in their footsteps or destroy the game and it’s silly rules.
The corporation is not the enemy, they are simply another player on the board. They’ve just figured out how to play better than most.
Jeez all those words for essentially saying what the world’s best sage Ice-T said all those years ago:
"Don’t hate the playa. Hate the game:"
I convinced myself to go to a quarterly meeting
I usually skip these since I write the script and build yhe spreadsheets anf slides.
It’s been years since I’ve attended because it’s redundent info but today we’re discussing Obamacare/PPACA impact on the company.
Should be interesting.