As I see, corporations is not a topic that's frequently discussed in this forums. Do you think that they are compatible with libertarian principles? I don't see the problem, as they can be perfectly constructed from private property contracts. What I don't like is, obviously, the state-backed corporation that now exists. Any thoughts about this?Here's some stuff to read:Robert Hessen, 1979: http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Corporation-Hoover-Institution-Publication/dp/0817970711
Robert Hessen: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Corporations.html
Walter Block, 2002: http://mises.org/journals/jls/16_4/16_4_2.pdf
Piet-Hein Van Eeghen, 2005: mises.org/journals/jls/19_3/19_3_3.pdf , mises.org/journals/jls/19_4/19_4_3.pdf
Stephan Kinsella, 2005: http://blog.mises.org/archives/004269.asp
Gary North, 2005: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north408.html
Sean Gabb, 2005: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc135.htmKevin Carson, 2005: http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/04/sean-gabb-gives-corporatists-nine.html
Kevin Carson, 2005: http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2006/04/corporate-personhood.html
Sean Gabb, 2006: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc152.htm
Stephan Kinsella, 2006: http://blog.mises.org/archives/005679.asp
Rodering Long, 2008: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11/10/roderick-long/corporations-versus-the-market-or-whip-conflation-now/
Peter Klein, 2008: http://blog.mises.org/archives/008924.asp
It seems to me that many defenses of limited liability revolve around the idea that this situation could be created through individual agreements. The problem is, I don't think that's true, unless the corporation is going to, before it begins operations, make such agreements with everyone on earth. An agreement with the customers of the firm does not explain why it is that third parties impacted by firm operations cannot seek remedy from the firm's owners.
JAlanKatz: It seems to me that many defenses of limited liability revolve around the idea that this situation could be created through individual agreements. The problem is, I don't think that's true, unless the corporation is going to, before it begins operations, make such agreements with everyone on earth. An agreement with the customers of the firm does not explain why it is that third parties impacted by firm operations cannot seek remedy from the firm's owners.
I think in the current environment limited liability is a necessity, given all the ridiculous legislation that has been passed. However, in a free market, there would not be any labor laws or anti-trust laws. So there probably would not be nearly as much need to protect investors, as there is now.
I agree with you that there is no way for a business owner to contract with investors limited liability, because that is not something that has to do with the investor and business owner. That has to do with the person bringing the lawsuit to court and the investors.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
The question is not whether corporations should be liable for their acts, but whether equity investors should be. Creditors are not liable, after all.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: The question is not whether corporations should be liable for their acts, but whether equity investors should be. Creditors are not liable, after all.
I do not think anyone questions whether or not creditors are liable. They are not. However, investors are, because they are owners.
Spideynw:I do not think anyone questions whether or not creditors are liable. They are not. However, investors are, because they are owners.
Are they really? To what extent?
I doubt that an old retired couple who owns a couple of shares in Goldman Sachs through a retirement fund is an owner of anything.
ivan, mutualists are anti-capitalists, they are not remotely close to austro-libertarians in many cases rejecting both the division of labour and the STV. The one area of *supposed* commonality is the non-aggression ethic, and thus a voluntary exchange market. But even that isn't very clear based on their other positions.
So there are at least a couple people on that list who shouldn't be put forth as libertarian critics of corportations IMO.
LTV or STV?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Fixed. Poor concentration right now. Sorry.
Stranger: Spideynw:I do not think anyone questions whether or not creditors are liable. They are not. However, investors are, because they are owners. Are they really? To what extent? I doubt that an old retired couple who owns a couple of shares in Goldman Sachs through a retirement fund is an owner of anything.
They are partial owners of Goldman Sachs. That is what a stock is, an agreement between the current business owners of a company and an investor: to give partial ownership of the company to the investor in return for money.
A retirement fund legally represents the old retired couple. In other words, whatever the retirement fund buys with the old couple's money is just like the old couple buying it themselves.
If instead of being partial owners, the couple just wanted to be creditors, they could do that as well. However, as a creditor, they would be unable to make any business decisions.
liberty student: ivan, mutualists are anti-capitalists, they are not remotely close to austro-libertarians in many cases rejecting both the division of labour and the STV. The one area of *supposed* commonality is the non-aggression ethic, and thus a voluntary exchange market. But even that isn't very clear based on their other positions. So there are at least a couple people on that list who shouldn't be put forth as libertarian critics of corportations IMO.
If you're refering to Kevin Carson, I knew. Even that, maybe he has something important to say.
ivanfoofoo:If you're refering to Kevin Carson, I knew. Even that, maybe he has something important to say.
Gabb and Long as well perhaps.
liberty student: ivanfoofoo:If you're refering to Kevin Carson, I knew. Even that, maybe he has something important to say. Gabb and Long as well perhaps.
As far as I know, both Gabb and Long are still libertarians (in the capitalist sense). Maybe Long has rather unusual approaches (which I don't really like) but he's still a libertarian I think.
Spideynw:If instead of being partial owners, the couple just wanted to be creditors, they could do that as well. However, as a creditor, they would be unable to make any business decisions.
They are unable to make as it is.
scineram: Spideynw:If instead of being partial owners, the couple just wanted to be creditors, they could do that as well. However, as a creditor, they would be unable to make any business decisions. They are unable to make as it is.
I do not know all the logistics of it, but when one buys a stock, one is considered a part owner.