Continued from here,
JCFolsom: liberty student:Embarassing and shameful. All modern corporations are quasi-governmental agencies, legally-established entities with ablities and natures unattainable in a true free market. The periodic bailouts of automobile and aviation industries should be proof enough of that. That, and, particularly in the case of shipping, the fact the centralized and remote production from which a corp like Macy's gets its inventory is only possible because the bulk of its transportation costs are carried in socialized roads. The idea that they are free market institutions is a lie perpetuated for its usefulness. Firstly, it deflects the natural resentment that people have towards the unnatural concentration of capital away from the government that is truly behind it. Secondly, for that reason and especially when things go wrong, it allows government to set itself up as an alternative that will fix things, justifying Leviathan's growth. Truly private enterprise and the conduct of business between individuals is the free market, not huge quasi-governmental corporate Leviathan-spawn. Burn the f-ers down.
liberty student:Embarassing and shameful.
All modern corporations are quasi-governmental agencies, legally-established entities with ablities and natures unattainable in a true free market. The periodic bailouts of automobile and aviation industries should be proof enough of that. That, and, particularly in the case of shipping, the fact the centralized and remote production from which a corp like Macy's gets its inventory is only possible because the bulk of its transportation costs are carried in socialized roads. The idea that they are free market institutions is a lie perpetuated for its usefulness. Firstly, it deflects the natural resentment that people have towards the unnatural concentration of capital away from the government that is truly behind it. Secondly, for that reason and especially when things go wrong, it allows government to set itself up as an alternative that will fix things, justifying Leviathan's growth.
Truly private enterprise and the conduct of business between individuals is the free market, not huge quasi-governmental corporate Leviathan-spawn. Burn the f-ers down.
So how do you come to this determination?
My issue is that I do not believe private property destruction is ever justified. Sure, Macy's comes by it's property dishonestly, but mob violence is not the way to rectify the situation. How many of us living under the state come by our property in a legitimately libertarian manner? Should the same rules of property vandalism and destruction extend to everyone?
This is not the anarchy I signed up for.
liberty student:My issue is that I do not believe private property destruction is ever justified.
I'm trying to make the point that it's not private.
liberty student:Sure, Macy's comes by it's property dishonestly, but mob violence is not the way to rectify the situation.
I didn't say it was, but that's different than being justified. Macy's isn't a person, it's a thing, a legal fiction, with no legitimate rights to anything.
liberty student:How many of us living under the state come by our property in a legitimately libertarian manner? Should the same rules of property vandalism and destruction extend to everyone?
You and I are people, who would be private were we not enslaved. Macy's would not, could not even exist but as an extension of government power.
I love you like a brother JC, but I'm not buying. LLCs can and likely will exist under a free market.
By your rationale, vandarchists could burn down churches.
Aww, ain't you sweet! Be that as it may, that is true, so long as a legal corporation, an extension of government power, rather than a priest or congregation, owns it. Once legitimate owners are in place, property right (insofar as they go) apply.
You can call your business arrangement whatever you want, and set the terms of your dealings with others. This is getting tangled into other threads, though. I'm aware that most of y'all are more libertarian Corporatists than actual anarchists.
JCFolsom:Be that as it may, that is true, so long as a legal corporation, an extension of government power, rather than a priest or congregation, owns it. Once legitimate owners are in place, property right (insofar as they go) apply.
How is a church (a government sponsored non-profit) a legitimate owner?
If the state murders indigenous people, and grants me their land to settle, am I legitimate owner?
Are you saying that the state property is subject to destruction and vandalism?
JCFolsom:I'm aware that most of y'all are more libertarian Corporatists than actual anarchists.
And I think you are grasping at straws to justify violence and property destruction. You're a smart cat, come up with a principle that can be applied to every business, individual, corporation and state. Your definition is very loose, and clearly not totally thought out.
Btw, if you think that what happened at the RNC was anarchy, you're very wrong.
Property destruction, state owned or otherwise, is vandalism, not anarchism.
JCFolsom:I didn't say it was, but that's different than being justified. Macy's isn't a person, it's a thing, a legal fiction, with no legitimate rights to anything.
So you advocate theft from all the legimite owners of "Macy's" on the grounds that it isn't an actual living, breathing person but is a large collection of living, breathing people who pooled their capital together to provide a service to as many people as possible.
As LC points out this argument could be used to justify a drive-by shooting against a bowling team because the 'Bronx Bombers' isn't a thing in its own right therefore doesn't have any protections from theft and violence.
JCFolsom:You and I are people, who would be private were we not enslaved. Macy's would not, could not even exist but as an extension of government power.
The only 'libertarian' method to deal with a situation like this, assuming what you say is true, would be to remove the government protections from it and let the true owners decide if they wish to reorganize or liquidate the assets under their legal ownership.
There is no way you could possibly justify jacking a company car or burning down one of their stores to force this structural change and/or redistribute their wealth to the 'rightful' owners who I assume would be either the paid employees or the general public.
So while it may be true that 'corporations' are the result of state interference in the market your argument for using violence against them is weak, to put it extremely kindly.
I don't really feel like jousting with strawmen today so save your corporatist ad hominems for someone else, please.
Anonymous Coward:So you advocate theft from all the legimite owners of "Macy's" on the grounds that it isn't an actual living, breathing person but is a large collection of living, breathing people who pooled their capital together to provide a service to as many people as possible.
But I'm not stealing from the owners of Macy's. They still own the entirety of what they bought: a part of a fictional entity. As others have pointed out here, it's not the value of Macy's they own, but Macy's itself. The corporatist system is set up specifically to benefit the shareholders, to protect them from liability. If you are a sole proprietor, and a jagged tool, precariously placed on a shelf, falls on me, and I sue the store, you are liable. It's your store. If that happens in Macy's, you aren't liable, only the store itself is liable. Which is nonsensical. You gained illegitimate advantage by incorporation. Now reap what you sowed.
Anonymous Coward:As LC points out this argument could be used to justify a drive-by shooting against a bowling team because the 'Bronx Bombers' isn't a thing in its own right therefore doesn't have any protections from theft and violence.
No, people are actual beings. If, somehow, I could do a drive-by against the property of the team as some sort of seperate fictional entity without hurting the actual people and their personal property, then the situation would be analogous.
Anonymous Coward:The only 'libertarian' method to deal with a situation like this, assuming what you say is true, would be to remove the government protections from it and let the true owners decide if they wish to reorganize or liquidate the assets under their legal ownership. There is no way you could possibly justify jacking a company car or burning down one of their stores to force this structural change and/or redistribute their wealth to the 'rightful' owners who I assume would be either the paid employees or the general public.
Nonsense. Because it is acknowledged by most as owned by the fictional entity, which cannot, in fact, own anything, no legitimate owner has claimed it. Because that is the case, it is available for claiming and homesteading. The "vandarchist", as it were, does this by destroying it... not the most constructive use, most likely, but hey, it's their's now, right? They can do what they want with it.
JCFolsom:Nonsense. Because it is acknowledged by most as owned by the fictional entity, which cannot, in fact, own anything, no legitimate owner has claimed it. Because that is the case, it is available for claiming and homesteading. The "vandarchist", as it were, does this by destroying it... not the most constructive use, most likely, but hey, it's their's now, right? They can do what they want with it.
Uh, huh...
So the ownership doesn't revert to the owners of the fictional entity but becomes unowned? How's that work, ethically speaking?
Anonymous Coward:Uh, huh... So the ownership doesn't revert to the owners of the fictional entity but becomes unowned? How's that work, ethically speaking?
The shareholders already disavowed ownership by acknowledging the corporate entity and implicitly acknowledging its property rights. They were wrong to thing that "it" has any ability to own property, however they knowingly entered into an arrangement where they owned not the corporate assets, but only the "slave", the corporation itself.
JCFolsom:The shareholders already disavowed ownership by acknowledging the corporate entity and implicitly acknowledging its property rights. They were wrong to thing that "it" has any ability to own property, however they knowingly entered into an arrangement where they owned not the corporate assets, but only the "slave", the corporation itself.
And the ethical basis for this assertion would be?
Anonymous Coward:And the ethical basis for this assertion would be?
Forgive my being obtuse, but could you clarify the question?
JCFolsom: Anonymous Coward:And the ethical basis for this assertion would be? Forgive my being obtuse, but could you clarify the question?
All I get is that you believe that someone who believed in a structure of ownership that you don't believe in loses their rights to any property that is encompassed under this 'corporate structure'.
What you have left out is where your belief is justified in removing all claims to property titles under such a system instead of something like my belief that ownership would revert to the owners of the ficticious entity that controls the property you claim is open to homesteading.
My belief is consistent with property as a negative right, IMHO, while yours seems to assume that anyone who doesn't hold the same views as yourself automatically loses any rights to ownership of the contested property and is open to justified theft on a grand scale.
I was just kind of wondering under what ethical basis you rationalize violence and theft against the rightful owners of 'corporate property'.
Unless I'm gravely mistaken, you take the state to be an illegitimate holder of property, do you not? Ought former governors inherit all the property from the dead state? The state and the corporation are the same sort of abomination, lies meant to legitimize powers and immunities no truly private entity could claim, and the latter, as it stands today, cannot exist without the former. But those who "own" the corporation have no more rights than those that "own" the state which spawned it. You are just as guilty as I of evaluating what is or is not rightful property, regardless of claims, based on your beliefs. I just draw the line in a different place than you, and in my mind a more consistent one.
JCFolsom:Unless I'm gravely mistaken, you take the state to be an illegitimate holder of property, do you not?
Even if a corporation is an 'illegitimate holder of property', of which I actually conceded that point for the sake of argument, the way in which they acquire property is much different than the State.
The State uses force and coercion, much like your proposed 'solution' to this problem, while a corporation buys and sells property on the market just like you and me.
If a corporation (and by default the owners of the corporation) acquire property in a non-fraudulent way how are you, a disinterested outsider with no valid claim in any conceivable way, not committing theft by deciding that they are not the rightful owner and that you in fact are?
This is starting to sound like the typical justification to tax the rich because they have 'more than their fair share'. Or egalitarian BS.
JCFolsom:You are just as guilty as I of evaluating what is or is not rightful property, regardless of claims, based on your beliefs. I just draw the line in a different place than you, and in my mind a more consistent one.
Well, with the subtle difference that my 'belief' isn't based on some arbritrary value judgement but on a valid theory of property rights.
Anonymous Coward:Even if a corporation is an 'illegitimate holder of property', of which I actually conceded that point for the sake of argument, the way in which they acquire property is much different than the State.
Indeed. Rather than gaining their property as the State, they gain it from the State, like any other State agency. Corporations are economic arms of the State, socialisms hiding behind the masks of markets. The owners have made a devil's bargain: protection and monopoly profit for what in the end is further slavery. Has it not been amply demonstrated of late that the government is only too happy, when necessary, to absorb its appendages back into itself, to cast aside the facade of separation? It has grown to the point that its masters no longer feel as keenly the need for deception.
Anonymous Coward:The State uses force and coercion, much like your proposed 'solution' to this problem, while a corporation buys and sells property on the market just like you and me.
The worker at a national park gift shop uses neither force nor coercion, and buys and sells property on the market just like you. This makes him no less an extension of the coercive state. Corporations are the same.
Anonymous Coward:If a corporation (and by default the owners of the corporation) acquire property in a non-fraudulent way how are you, a disinterested outsider with no valid claim in any conceivable way, not committing theft by deciding that they are not the rightful owner and that you in fact are?
No, ownership does not default to the owners of the corporation. Corporate law, into which the corporate owners voluntarily entered, states explicitly that it is the "corporate person", not the owners of that person, that owns corporate assets. A shareholder cannot demand the liquidation and payout from a proportional amount of its assets, because the corporation remains a unit, a legal entity, despite having been split into a multitude of shares, and it alone owns that property. If you hold to the ridiculous notion that a fiction can own property, that is.
Aren't we all "outsiders" in regards to unclaimed property? Unclaimed by anything real, that is.
Anonymous Coward:This is starting to sound like the typical justification to tax the rich because they have 'more than their fair share'. Or egalitarian BS. JCFolsom:You are just as guilty as I of evaluating what is or is not rightful property, regardless of claims, based on your beliefs. I just draw the line in a different place than you, and in my mind a more consistent one. Well, with the subtle difference that my 'belief' isn't based on some arbritrary value judgement but on a valid theory of property rights.
And you've long sounded like a typical vulgar libertarian. And I'd never say to tax anyone, though no doubt most of the rich have more than their fair share. I am no egalitarian, I just hate those who use collusion with the state to cement and increase their wealth and power beyond what their true worth could merit. The system rewards most richly those who are most willing to cast away all dignity, honor, and compassion. I pray that I live to see a day of reckoning.
JCFolsom:And you've long sounded like a typical vulgar libertarian.
Vandalism is vulgar. I'm tired of the term "vulgar libertarian" being bandied about by people who should know better. It's seems to be the left-anarchist slander of choice for anyone who opposes their soft socialism or violent anti-property agenda.
"More than their fair share"? Perhaps more than their share, but then the notion of a share, or that there is such thing as a fair share is inherently un-libertarian.
Protest like crazy. I'm actually for it. I think it is ironic that Brad Spangler would claim to be apolitical, then organize political protests, but hey, whatever. Property destruction and hooliganism totally undermine the message of standing up to state power. On the contrary, to outsiders, it reinforced the notion that political power exists to keep the mob in check and defend private property.
The only message sent by breaking Macy's windows, is one of feedback, or preaching to the choir. At best, libertarians will get it. At worst, they will start to believe it is a successful tactic.
liberty student:"More than their fair share"? Perhaps more than their share, but then the notion of a share, or that there is such thing as a fair share is inherently un-libertarian.
I use it in only a libertarian sense, which is to say, a fair share is that gained without coercion. Any advantage gained through force is unfair. Is that somehow controvertial? Certain terms may evoke visceral negative reactions in people, but we should work to get rid of the aversions trained into us as part of a largely false left-right dichotomy.
liberty student:Protest like crazy. I'm actually for it. I think it is ironic that Brad Spangler would claim to be apolitical, then organize political protests, but hey, whatever. Property destruction and hooliganism totally undermine the message of standing up to state power. On the contrary, to outsiders, it reinforced the notion that political power exists to keep the mob in check and defend private property.
I believe I've said several times by now that it was not necessarily a smart move or a good thing to do, but only that there was no ethical violation, at least beyond possibly giving anarchism an even worse image amongst a corporate-brainwashed populace.
Fictional entities? Like rights, like ownership?
scineram:Fictional entities? Like rights, like ownership?
I don't know that anyone thinks that principles such as rights or ownership are people. However, corporations are treated as people. Rights can't own anything. If I say, "No, I don't own this, but my right to free speech does," than I have denied personal ownership. Same thing. Try again.
JCFolsom: liberty student:"More than their fair share"? Perhaps more than their share, but then the notion of a share, or that there is such thing as a fair share is inherently un-libertarian. I use it in only a libertarian sense, which is to say, a fair share is that gained without coercion. Any advantage gained through force is unfair. Is that somehow controvertial? Certain terms may evoke visceral negative reactions in people, but we should work to get rid of the aversions trained into us as part of a largely false left-right dichotomy. liberty student:Protest like crazy. I'm actually for it. I think it is ironic that Brad Spangler would claim to be apolitical, then organize political protests, but hey, whatever. Property destruction and hooliganism totally undermine the message of standing up to state power. On the contrary, to outsiders, it reinforced the notion that political power exists to keep the mob in check and defend private property. I believe I've said several times by now that it was not necessarily a smart move or a good thing to do, but only that there was no ethical violation, at least beyond possibly giving anarchism an even worse image amongst a corporate-brainwashed populace.
I understand the point that JC is making is that in a revolution, corporations can be legitimate targets of violence. JC justifies this by saying that since the corporation exists and is protected by the state, that attacks on corporations are justified. Now as JC rightfully says this is not to say that this tactic should be employed in all cases but that they are justifiable. I would qualify JC's opinion by saying that people who have formed corporations many times are just as much a victim of the state as everyone else and only form these entities as a means to make a living or to comply with some other regulation. I would contrast these with corporations that are actively involved in promoting the states coercion and routinely receive special priveleges. I consider there to be a big difference between the local liquor store and the companies that have just been bailed out by the governement. The first is a guy trying to make a living and the second are actively promoting and sustaining a corrupt state economic system.
You begged the question. Why should fictional entities not own anything?
Maxliberty:I understand the point that JC is making is that in a revolution, corporations can be legitimate targets of violence. JC justifies this by saying that since the corporation exists and is protected by the state, that attacks on corporations are justified. Now as JC rightfully says this is not to say that this tactic should be employed in all cases but that they are justifiable. I would qualify JC's opinion by saying that people who have formed corporations many times are just as much a victim of the state as everyone else and only form these entities as a means to make a living or to comply with some other regulation. I would contrast these with corporations that are actively involved in promoting the states coercion and routinely receive special priveleges. I consider there to be a big difference between the local liquor store and the companies that have just been bailed out by the governement. The first is a guy trying to make a living and the second are actively promoting and sustaining a corrupt state economic system.
I appreciate the understanding here, and I do indeed have some sympathy with the owner of the incorporated liquor store. I think that, practically speaking, this is not a person or property that should be a target of revolutionary violence. That being said (and the Christians, I hope, will forgive me for using their terminology), that the world is ruled by the Devil does not justify your alliance with him, it just increases the penalty of not doing so. You took the bargain, and the price was your ultimate right over what was once yours. It is simple and unfortunate.
scineram:You begged the question. Why should fictional entities not own anything?
Because you have no right to force the acknowledgement of fictional entities as having rights, or even acknowledgement of their existence in the first place.
What precisely makes them fictional? Do not talk about current-law, but in general.
Knight_of_BAAWA:What precisely makes them fictional? Do not talk about current-law, but in general.
They attempt to define a collective activity as an individual entity independent of its consitutents.
Not that I'm aware of. Perhaps you could demonstrate this.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Not that I'm aware of. Perhaps you could demonstrate this.
I guess I'm still basing my definition of a corporation on the modern legal one. What is your definition of a corporation?
No, I'd rather wait for your demonstration, if it's all the same to you.
Knight_of_BAAWA:No, I'd rather wait for your demonstration, if it's all the same to you.
It's not, but alright: A corporation is a legal entity established by a government-approved charter by which all are compelled to respect this legislative fiction as a person, with many of the rights of human person, despite the fact that it exists only on paper and in people's minds. I have no objection to any contractual obligation you might wish to do business under, but only that you use the power of government to force others to obey the terms of that contractual arrangement who were not parties to the contract. Ultimately, property must be held by actual, physical persons, or it is held by literally no one.
Let's say you sign a corporate charter; implicit or explicit in incorporation is the legal status of corporate assets belonging to the unitary and personified corporation itself, not the shareholders. Like any person, the corporation exists independent of these assets, but is seen as having ultimate rightful control: ownership. You take this step for the protections it affords; under the current legal environment, or any compatible with this step, it is advantageous for you.
Now, when I steal from the corporate person, because I don't see it as a person, a couple things can happen. The corporation can try to sue me, but that unless I'm compelled to do so I have no more reason to see it as a person with a right to sue than I do to see it as a person with a right to own. You can try to sue me, but I didn't steal your shares, which is the only thing you actually own, but the assets of the corporate person. You trying to sue me is trying to have your cake and eat it too. Or, you could let it go, but because you insist on everyone adhering to your madness regarding fake people having rights, you likely won't.
Does this "demonstrate" it? Where do you differ?
JCFolsom:It's not, but alright: A corporation is a legal entity established by a government-approved charter
But it doesn't have to be government-established, does it.
JCFolsom:by which all are compelled to respect this legislative fiction as a person, with many of the rights of human person, despite the fact that it exists only on paper and in people's minds. I have no objection to any contractual obligation you might wish to do business under, but only that you use the power of government to force others to obey the terms of that contractual arrangement who were not parties to the contract. Ultimately, property must be held by actual, physical persons, or it is held by literally no one.
And what sort of idiocy makes you presume that the property isn't held by the owners and merely have listed it as belonging to the "corporation" for business purposes? It's really nothing more than an ALIAS, when you get right down to it.
So if you steal from a corporation you're stealing from "John Doe and Richard Roe under the alias of XYZ Corporation", in essence.
Hope that helps you rid yourself of your leftist hatred of corporations.
When corporations are no more than aliases for their owners, then that's fine. Until such a time, however, their existence remains as an extension of state power and is demonstrably different in nature than an alias. Your version of a corporation is not the definition of a corporation as it exists today.
JC, I appreciate your efforts to respond to the criticisms in this thread.
Regardless of other arguments, I do not feel there is a clear enough cut definition of whom it is ok to perpetuate property destruction against, and who is not. In every business, some amount of state participation (through licensing, regulation, payroll tax collection etc) is involved.
If there was a guiding principle, a yes/no answer to "can we vandalize" then I might be persuaded.
JCFolsom: But I'm not stealing from the owners of Macy's. They still own the entirety of what they bought: a part of a fictional entity. As others have pointed out here, it's not the value of Macy's they own, but Macy's itself. The corporatist system is set up specifically to benefit the shareholders, to protect them from liability. If you are a sole proprietor, and a jagged tool, precariously placed on a shelf, falls on me, and I sue the store, you are liable. It's your store. If that happens in Macy's, you aren't liable, only the store itself is liable. Which is nonsensical. You gained illegitimate advantage by incorporation. Now reap what you sowed.
In my experience, the libertarian-ish complaints about corporation are almost universally uninformed. I go into this in In Defense of the Corporation, but take your example. Is this a case of contract, or tort? If contract, as Hessen has shown, there is no problem: those who deal with the company do so under the condition they can only sue for a certain limited set of assets. Now, if you enter a store that is owned by a corporation, I believe this can be viewed as a contract not tort.
But even if it's tort, then the assumption that the current situation is government privilege is again very confused an uninformed. Under the law, a victim of tort can always sue the individual who negligently harms him--the tortfeasor. If the guy stocking the shelves did it negligently and you are harmed, and this is a tort, you can sue that person--whether he's the manager or stockboy of a corporation or sole proprietorship.
Corporate limited liability laws state that the shareholders are only liable up to the value of their shares-what they. Now, if the shareholder were normally liable for torts and the law exempted them, that would be unlibertarian. But should the shareholder be liable for torts committed by an employee of a corporation that they own a share in? Why? A theory of causal responsibility is needed. No one has even shown that the company/employer ought to be responsible for the acts of the employee--that is, that the doctrine of respondeat superior is valid. In my view the managers who direct a tort to be performed by an underling are responsible. And modern corporate laws do not prevent this. Should shareholders be? Why? A shareholder might not even have given money to the company--he may have bought the share from another shareholder. So all he has is a right to (a) receive dividends, and a pro-rata share of assets if the company liquidates; and (b) to vote for directors; the directors hire managers; the managers hire and manage other employees. The shareholder role is very limited; if he is liable, then why not creditors, employees, vendors, suppliers, even customers?--they all support and help influence the corporation's decisions. In any event, if a given shareholder is causally responsible for the tort performed by an employee of a corporation the shareholder owns stock in, I do not think corporate law limits their liability. The truth is that shareholders are simply not liable in the first place for torts of others, and should not be, absent special circumstances.
Moreover, even if they were, so what? Most of them don't have enough personal assets to help satisfy a big verdict; and if it's small, the corporation will pay it anyway and indemnify the shareholder if he is liable; and the shareholder would in any event probably have insurance, and even if he doesnt', the corporation usually would. So this is all academic anyway. The entire attack on corporations is based on ignorance and resentment.
Stephan Kinsella nskinsella@gmail.com www.StephanKinsella.com
JCFolsom:They attempt to define a collective activity as an individual entity independent of its consitutents.
Which is actually the basis of my argument against your corporate property is unowned argument.
You claim that the shareholders own a piece of the 'individual entity' that is somehow separate from its constituents parts and therefore they don't own any of the constituent parts. The constituent parts are unowned and open to homesteading because they are owned by a 'fictitious person' who can't own property because they are, well, fictitious.
What you have failed to show is how someone loses ownership rights in the constituents parts by believing that they own a share of the whole.
And your whole chain of logic to justify theft and violence;
Yep. And by their logic, since the state issues people social security numbers, they are "chartered by" the state and have no rights.
Anonymous Coward:Which is actually the basis of my argument against your corporate property is unowned argument. You claim that the shareholders own a piece of the 'individual entity' that is somehow separate from its constituents parts and therefore they don't own any of the constituent parts. The constituent parts are unowned and open to homesteading because they are owned by a 'fictitious person' who can't own property because they are, well, fictitious. What you have failed to show is how someone loses ownership rights in the constituents parts by believing that they own a share of the whole. And your whole chain of logic to justify theft and violence; The State is the debil Corporations are chartered by the state Corporations are the debil
No, my chain is thus:
Are my motives pure? No! I resent the corporate magnates, the rich and the powerful, those who have played this little socialist tyranny of ours the best and the longest. I am young, and a wageslave, and I see above me terribly powerful figures in whose interest the world is held, as hard as possible, to the status quo, limiting competition, so that for most the only way to support yourself is working for the wealth of some *** who happened to have this or that piece of property. But I don't advocate destroying the property they sometimes call theirs just because I want to. I can, because they opened the door by stating they did not own the corporate assets, that only the corporation owned it.
Kinsella, talk about how a shareholder has no more power over the actions of a corporation than an major creditor or important customer. That may be so, but a neither a creditor nor a customer has a claim against you if you damage the corporation's property, as you seem to think a shareholder does. That a shareholder enters into a foolish arrangement in which they have little control over actions for which they could be held liable, that is their own madness.
You say that it is managers that control employees, not the shareholders who hire them. But just hiring someone to perform your responsibilities for you should not exempt you if you choose poorly. Perhaps, you might say, they can have a clause in the contract that the manager must pay all damages in case of a suit that would normally affect the shareholder. Very well, but the one bringing the lawsuit is no party to your contract. If the damages exceed the manager's ability to pay, the shareholders should still be liable.
Finally, tacking a couple letters onto the end of your name like "Inc." or "Corp." should not constitute an implied contract. What a bunch of nonsense. All contracts should be explicit; aught else is a swindle. If you come to me and say, "Oh, no, you agreed not to sue me directly because there's an Inc. behind my name" I'll laugh in your face. You can't obligate the general population to know of the special immunities you claim based on a few damned letters. Anarchism, remember?
A lot of this would be academic in a true anarchy anyway. Production, commerce, and justice would all be rendered so local and personal that these would be reduced to quibbles. But, as it stands right now, no human owns corporate property. And only humans can own.
JCFolsom:Kinsella, talk about how a shareholder has no more power over the actions of a corporation than an major creditor or important customer. That may be so, but a neither a creditor nor a customer has a claim against you if you damage the corporation's property, as you seem to think a shareholder does. That a shareholder enters into a foolish arrangement in which they have little control over actions for which they could be held liable, that is their own madness.
I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say. The question is why should shareholders be liable for the torts of others? Any more than others with diffuse and distant influence over the company's policies and actions? I don't think customers, creditors, or even shareholders have any claims against those that damage the corporation. What are you talking about?
You say that it is managers that control employees, not the shareholders who hire them. But just hiring someone to perform your responsibilities for you should not exempt you if you choose poorly.
It's the other way around. If employee A harms a third party, A is surely liable (as he is now under current law). To hold any other person or entity (such as his employer) responsible for A's torts requires some other rationale. The common law doctrine of respondeat superior says the employer is vicariously liable for the torts committed by his employees during the scope of their employment. I have yet to see even this doctrine justified under libertarian theory, though perhaps it can be. But this only means the employer, or maybe the supervisors/managers, are liable also. Directors too? I doubt it, in most cases. Shareholders? No. Creditors? Not usually. Customers, suppliers, contractors? Probably not, usually. The connection is too tenuous.
Perhaps, you might say, they can have a clause in the contract that the manager must pay all damages in case of a suit that would normally affect the shareholder. Very well, but the one bringing the lawsuit is no party to your contract. If the damages exceed the manager's ability to pay, the shareholders should still be liable.
Why? If a given shareholder didn't commit the tort, why should he be liable? You need to expalin why he should be liable in the first place.
Finally, tacking a couple letters onto the end of your name like "Inc." or "Corp." should not constitute an implied contract. What a bunch of nonsense. All contracts should be explicit; aught else is a swindle.
This is utter nonsense. A contract is jsut a way of transferring title to property. Of course it need not be written or explicit, or even verbal at all. In any event, this is pettifogging. If for some bizarre reason "Inc." or "Corp." were to be held insufficient notice, then corporations could easily adopt explicit little notices or contracts for all their dealings with customers, vendors, creditors, and so on--and I'm sure you anti-corporate types would find something to nitpick about this too.
If you come to me and say, "Oh, no, you agreed not to sue me directly because there's an Inc. behind my name" I'll laugh in your face. You can't obligate the general population to know of the special immunities you claim based on a few damned letters. Anarchism, remember?
The suit is either for a contractual claim, or a tort. A tort is committed by a person or persons; they can be sued directly. iF you want to sue others beyond the direct tortfeasor (say, if you want to sue not only the negligent FedEx truck driver who crashed into you, but alos his boss, or his employer, or the shareholders who own shares in that employer), you need to establish some rationale for why these other people should be liable for the torts of the driver. For contracts--this is easy, as Hessen has definitively shown.
Production would be local? Silly.
I own a few shares in a couple evil corporations.
They send me a quite detailed account of their assets and liabilities every three months or so and I know full well that I own a miniscule part of that and not a piece of the independent whole.
When Enron tanked they would have sent me a check for my portion of whatever was left of the burning hulk after all their liabilities were paid, I actually believe they did to the tune of $0.03 or something like that.
The only 'fiction' is your belief that ownership of the whole doesn't entail one to ownership of the pieces.
JCFolsom:A lot of this would be academic in a true anarchy anyway. Production, commerce, and justice would all be rendered so local and personal that these would be reduced to quibbles. But, as it stands right now, no human owns corporate property. And only humans can own.
What, you think every small town is going to be able to finance a couple billion dollar microchip fabrication plant or own and maintain the portion of the rail line that runs through town?
You must be one of those anarcho-primitivists or something?
nskinsella:I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say. The question is why should shareholders be liable for the torts of others? Any more than others with diffuse and distant influence over the company's policies and actions? I don't think customers, creditors, or even shareholders have any claims against those that damage the corporation. What are you talking about?
nskinsella:If employee A harms a third party, A is surely liable (as he is now under current law). To hold any other person or entity (such as his employer) responsible for A's torts requires some other rationale. The common law doctrine of respondeat superior says the employer is vicariously liable for the torts committed by his employees during the scope of their employment. I have yet to see even this doctrine justified under libertarian theory, though perhaps it can be. But this only means the employer, or maybe the supervisors/managers, are liable also. Directors too? I doubt it, in most cases. Shareholders? No. Creditors? Not usually. Customers, suppliers, contractors? Probably not, usually. The connection is too tenuous.
A person is the ultimate rightful controller of that which that person owns. That is the definition of ownership. They are responsible for injuries caused by the property, whether it is they that directly employ/control it or their agents. Putting layers of employees between yourself and your property does not diminish your responsibility. The tenuousness of your control is no one's doing but your own; it is foolish to take ownership of, thus responsibility for, something you can't actually control. Unless, of course, you count on government to allow you to collect the benefits of ownership without just risk. Then, as long as you've made your devil's bargain properly, its not foolish, just evil.
nskinsella:Production would be local? Silly.
What is silly is the idea that the modern model of massive, centralized production could actually survive in an environment where transportation costs are not subsidized and land cannot be seized "for the public good". What is silly is thinking that a person could actually afford the risk of allowing such remote agency to handle his property if he is rightly held fully responsible for abuses or negligence with it. There are a lot of other silly things about the idea that modern, massive corporations, or anything like them, could survive without intense partnership with the powers of government, but it's late and I'm tired.
Anonymous Coward:The only 'fiction' is your belief that ownership of the whole doesn't entail one to ownership of the pieces.
It's not just a whole, it's taken to be a person, and they accrue the benefits as such. Let them suffer the consequences of it, too.
Anonymous Coward:What, you think every small town is going to be able to finance a couple billion dollar microchip fabrication plant or own and maintain the portion of the rail line that runs through town?
Lotta good that'll do them if some stubborn old grandma who lives just outside of town decides she doesn't like X, Y, or Z coming from the plant, and shuts down that portion of the track which is on her land. You have to be able to build, maintain, and aquire a lot of track or road for centralized production. How will you do it without forcefully removing some people's property rights? Only by stealing land have we ever managed to get cross-continental railroads or interstates.