-
I think this is a circular argument: "the difference between a management of a corporation and a government of a state is rent seeking, which by definition is only possible in state". I do not see how this clarifies anything. Also, I do not agree that hired managers of corporations cannot use the power of their position to gain personal benefits
-
Quite a lot of corporations are run by hired ("temporary") managers, not by owners. But I think I see your point - the elected politicians of the democratic states are only managers, and not owners. This still fails to address a difference between CRUSOE Inc. and oligarchy, or Crusoe as a person and a monarchy.
-
The state is not “one individual capable of intentional action”. Let's replace an individual Crusoe with CRUSOE Inc. This corporation has exclusive rights over the island, and is operated by managers. The managers are "under the pressure of rent seelers" as well as any governement - what is the difference?
-
Let me be a devil's advocate for a moment: Suppose we see a government of a territory as the only (allodial) owner of all the lands of this territory (and all the other private and corporate "owners" as what they are - tenants). Given this assumption, what is the difference between the state having a monopoly on agression on the territory
-
Also, productivity (almost) always depends on "land" and capital in addition to "labor". So even having completely equal skills and abilities, but owning different land and capital will lead to different productivity and thus to trade. Also, even in absence of land and capital factors, there is at least one benefit of specialization
-
If we start from an already unlikely assumption (perfectly proportional skills, no non-linear effects, etc.), why not go further and assume that aggression-relevant skills of both individuals are also proportional in the same ratio? If we stretch it even further, as the first individual is more efficient in both production and aggression, it does not
-
Wisniewski's arguments sound pretty clear. E.R.Olovetto mentioned this uses a faulty analogy, though. I would be interested to hear him elaborating.
-
A CRITIQUE OF BLOCK ON ABORTION AND CHILD ABANDONMENT by JAKUB BOZYDAR WISNIEWSKI, 2010.
-
http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-children.pdf
-
Just stumbled on an opinion by Walter Block: Stem Cell Research: The Libertarian Compromise . His idea is to apply homesteading principle to children. This basically means treating them as property, not as actors. It would be interesting to learn his opinion on when does a child become an actor with property rights to own body.