Hello all,
I am not only knew to this forum, but new to the world of Libertarianism (in a true sense). I've always held Libertarian beliefs, but it is only now that I begin reading deeply into it (libertarian manifesto, rothbard).
Anyways, I would like to have a concrete answer to how laissez-faire capitalism accounts for corporate responsibility. I have asked around and I get the answer that markets generally expunge such companies that would commit horrendous acts against nature/humans, but that's about as detailed as it gets.
I am truly a budding libertarian and will probably go to the road of anarchism eventually, but for now I have to have a concrete answer for this question, as it is very important for me to have peace of mind of this. I am sure libertarianism can provide such a concrete and logical answer, as it has already for every other question I have had!
Thanks!
What specifically does "corporate responsibility" mean. Not shirking the question, just trying to answer it well.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
Polluting a town's river, thereby giving the populace some horrible cancer;
Using cost-analysis to determine that the deaths of driving an unsafe vehicle outweight the costs of lawsuits.
Basically, corporate responsibility not commiting terrible acts to the environment/people.
A corporation's polluting of a river owned by a that party which is not itself (say B), is a crime punishable to the satisfaction of B. If I came on your lawn and dumped a bag of fecal on your lawnflamingo, you would have the right to press charges. Same thing if a corporation's actions poison the soil on your property. This is not practiced nowadays due to a convoluted and privileged legal system.
A corporation selling a dangerous car cannot be considered a criminal action. Both parties perceive to gain from the transaction. Should the car prove to be of an obviously dangerous design, it will become a less viable candidate for those seeking cars. Should it leak that the corporation ran this action from a cost-benefit basis, this has public relations implications. Generally it is not profitable for companies to produce products which make their customers not want to buy from them and encourage others not to buy from them. Remember when Ford got blown up about that Fiesta car that supposedly (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Fuel_tank_controversy) burst into flames? It got shushed off the manufacturing lines.
When corporations must pay directly for the harm that they cause, directly (through lawsuits) or indirectly (through losses), they tend not to act in a malignant manner. When they are shielded from the consequences of their actions, as they are today with LLC and monopolized courts, they have carte blanche on harmful action.
Welcome to the Mises forum! Be sure to check out the newbie thread for forum tips and how-to's.
Someone else actually recently asked a similar question about environmental issues. See here.
Funny you should ask...
theone:Basically, corporate responsibility not commiting terrible acts to the environment/people.
Welcome to a new world. I made a thread that you'll probably find helpful. See here.
theone:Polluting a town's river, thereby giving the populace some horrible cancer; Using cost-analysis to determine that the deaths of driving an unsafe vehicle outweight the costs of lawsuits. Basically, corporate responsibility not commiting terrible acts to the environment/people
Governments harm individuals in the name of the "common good".
Corporations can't exist on the free market as they require a government to recognize their personhood. Without corporate personhood we could only recongize individual people (principals and partners). I think this would be a disincentive for companies to be irresponsible as the owners of the business would be held liable and not the corporation
Corporations can't exist on the free market as they require a government to recognize their personhood.
Not all correct. Corporations as they exist right now couldn't exist on the free market, but similar company structures could be contractually recreated, but on a much more responsible level:
http://blog.mises.org/4269/in-defense-of-the-corporation/
http://blog.mises.org/9084/corporations-and-limited-liability-for-torts/
theone: Anyways, I would like to have a concrete answer to how laissez-faire capitalism accounts for corporate responsibility. I have asked around and I get the answer that markets generally expunge such companies that would commit horrendous acts against nature/humans, but that's about as detailed as it gets. ...I am sure libertarianism can provide such a concrete and logical answer, as it has already for every other question I have had!
...I am sure libertarianism can provide such a concrete and logical answer, as it has already for every other question I have had!
*studies have shown that texting while driving 70 MPH requires an extra 70 feet of breaking space to avoid hitting an oncoming obstacle. Compare that statistic with the 4 feet of extra breaking space required to avoid on obstacle when going the same speed, and the picture becomes clear that one is 19 and 1/2 times more likely to cause a fatal car crash when texting while driving than when driving "drunk" with a .08 BAC level. Yet, we find that the practice of texting while driving is not taken nearly as seriously. In no way however am I saying either should be illegal. I say this to point out that government is terribly inefficient at determining risk. Their decisions on punishment and the definitions of the crimes these punishments are applied to are generally the practice of arbitrary guess-work. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/31545004/Texting_And_Driving_Worse_Than_Drinking_and_Driving)
So, in summation, I don't think you have to worry about corporate responsibility. Almost anything would be better than relying on government responsibility. They have a monopoly on force, after all. If you have a grievance with them, who else can you go to for justice but them? But, irresponsibility, no matter who is irresponsible, is a bad thing. I hope the examples I outlined above have made the case that if a free market arrangement is anything, it is responsible. It is important to remember that the motivation of an action is so commonly confused with its result or, in this case, level of responsibility. The road owner's motivation may be many things, depending on the individual in question, but most assuredly one of these motivations is pure selfish profit. As you can see, this profit motivation is the impetus, rather than the hindrance, by which safety and a greater quality of life for all parties concerned is attained. The road owner may only profit by first profiting you in some way, for if he didn't, you would not provide the transaction through which he profits from.
Conversely, when a group of politicians author a new welfare bill, their motivations (which I suspect to be more sinister than they would lead you to believe) may truly be benign and well-meaning. They may genuinely believe that taxing one class of citizens in the name of helping another is a good thing. We find, however, that these policies often end up hurting not just those that are taxed for the welfare, but more specifically those whom the bill originally set out to benefit. Government expenses and programs are completely without a means to conduct profit-loss analysis, and this characteristic does not make them a good candidate for running the realm of social work; it makes them a very bad candidate. Even if it could be proved without question that one government program did produce some net good for society as a whole, there would still be no way of knowing if some other government program could have done a better job given the same resources. So, now we reach the crux of where any good libertarian debate style should lead to when attacking the supposed merits of any statist argument or system with regard to economics: the statist has no leg to stand on once you get to the calculation problem. There is no finer weapon to be used against them. I hope this all helped.
"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?"
Holy F*king Sh*t you wrote a lot.
You must not have read The Texas Trigger's first thread- he's the new guy! Well done!
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
The Texas Trigger:The question by the OP has been well answered, however I would say two things:[...]
More paragraphs!
NonAntiAnarchist:Holy F*king Sh*t you wrote a lot.
Whattya expect? guy's been lurking for 4 years. Got a lot to say.
Sorry John. Its fixed now
thone:Anyways, I would like to have a concrete answer to how laissez-faire capitalism accounts for corporate responsibility. I have asked around and I get the answer that markets generally expunge such companies that would commit horrendous acts against nature/humans, but that's about as detailed as it gets.
I, for one, don't see how universally-limited liability would exist as an institution in laissez-faire capitalism (i.e. anarcho-capitalism). Any business in laissez-faire capitalism would be fully liable for all damages incurred against non-contractual parties. Keep in mind that, even today, limited-liability corporations are chartered by governments and cannot (legally) exist otherwise.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum