Than to regular businesses and everyone else? I learned in my economics class that if a corporation is sued rather than the owner of the corporation being given the responsibility for what the company did... it is spread out for the whole corporation. Just what exactly gives them that favoritism? Also, I've been listening to Democracy Now-- a left leaning program, and, it's talking about holding the corporations that were involved with the Apartheid responsible for their crimes (http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2010/1/13/holding_corporations_accountable_for_apartheid_crimes)... and... they've also been covering blackwater's numerous crimes in Iraq (http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/8/blackwatergate_private_military_firm_in_firestorm). Blackwater has been given immunity by the state and has its pockets in the justice departments so it can get away with its illegal use of force in an illegitimate war.
I still don't understand. Under a liberal or libertarian legal system... corporations would not be given special privileges. Under the system AE-- whether in a minarchist or an anarchist state-- corporations would have the same rights as everyone else. Mises would probably be in disapproval of our legal system right now.
Under a libertarian system Rothbard makes it clear exactly how people would be held accountable for crimes they have or have not committed.
Clearly, Smith will file charges against Jones and institute suit or trial proceedings in the Y court system. Jones is invited to defend himself against the charges, although there can be no subpoena power, since any sort of force used against a man not yet convicted of a crime is itself an invasive and criminal act that could not be consonant with the free society we have been postulating. If Jones is declared innocent, or if he is declared guilty and consents to the finding, then there if no problem on this level, and the Y courts then institute suitable measures of punishment.[3] But what if Jones challenges the finding? In that case, he can either take the case to his X court system, or take it directly to a privately competitive Appeals Court of a type that will undoubtedly spring up in abundance on the market to fill the great need for such tribunals. Probably there will be just a few Appeals Court systems, far fewer than the number of primary courts, and each of the lower courts will boast to its customers about being members of those Appeals Court systems noted for their efficiency and probity. The Appeals Court decision can then be taken by the society as binding. Indeed, in the basic legal code of the free society, there probably would be enshrined some such clause as that the decision of any two courts will be considered binding, i.e., will be the point at which the court will be able to take action against the party adjudged guilty.[4]
Clearly, Smith will file charges against Jones and institute suit or trial proceedings in the Y court system. Jones is invited to defend himself against the charges, although there can be no subpoena power, since any sort of force used against a man not yet convicted of a crime is itself an invasive and criminal act that could not be consonant with the free society we have been postulating. If Jones is declared innocent, or if he is declared guilty and consents to the finding, then there if no problem on this level, and the Y courts then institute suitable measures of punishment.[3]
But what if Jones challenges the finding? In that case, he can either take the case to his X court system, or take it directly to a privately competitive Appeals Court of a type that will undoubtedly spring up in abundance on the market to fill the great need for such tribunals. Probably there will be just a few Appeals Court systems, far fewer than the number of primary courts, and each of the lower courts will boast to its customers about being members of those Appeals Court systems noted for their efficiency and probity. The Appeals Court decision can then be taken by the society as binding. Indeed, in the basic legal code of the free society, there probably would be enshrined some such clause as that the decision of any two courts will be considered binding, i.e., will be the point at which the court will be able to take action against the party adjudged guilty.[4]
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard146.html
Rothbard would not make a distinction between a corporation, an individual, or business. As a former leftist, I think that there shouldn't be a problem with AE thought-- to hold the corporations accountable. We can punish fraud. That's no problem. But small government Republicans and Democrats seem to think that they can't hold people accountable or let them fail when they're too important to society. It doesn't make sense to me.
I'm not turning marxist here. I am a believer in a free market system. I just don't think that corporations should have more legal rights than anyone else. They also should be held accountable more. I think a system of private courts would do better at holding the corporations accountable because the government courts seem to fall pray to politics. Going to socialism isn't the answer to this one. What do you think about this? Why have our legal lawyers gone out of their way to guarantee more rights to corporations-- as opposed to other forms of businesses? Can someone give me the history on this? And no, I'm not a marxist... I'm a former leftist... but I like AE... and I think AE can solve this problem.
A few random thoughts from a newbie...
1. What is AE? I've seen it a few times and have speculated that it might be something like Anarchist Economy, but it would be nice to know for sure. As a matter of fact it would be nice if there was some acronym/abbreviation list or something on here. It's a little tricky for a newbie to pick up the lingo. I've found a few on AF -- acronym finder ;) but couldn't see anything that looked reasonable for AE on there on the first 3 pages anyway.
2. I think there are some advantages, but some disadvantages to a corporate structure. The biggie is that an owner or owners are not personally liable for the actions or liabilities of the corporation or its employees. I'm not sure if that holds up for a sub chapter S corporation, though. But an owner can still be personally responsible for his or her own actions even while acting in a corporate capacity.
If a company employee, for instance, ran over some cars or people with a company dump truck, the corporation would be liable for damages (if there was negligence etc.), but if there was a judgment in excess of the value of the corporation, they couldn't go after the owners' personal assets (ie. the stockholders, whether that is one person or hundreds of thousands). That is not true for a sole proprietor or a partnership structure, however. In those cases, the owner(s) could be liable for damages even if they exceeded the value of the company. But if a corporate owner was driving the dump truck and was deemed negligent, he or she could be personally liable for damages over and above whatever might be covered by insurance &/or corporate assets.
3. I think there are also advantages individuals can have that businesses in general do not enjoy. I saw an article in the paper a few days or so ago that was talking about how hackers were stealing computer passwords etc. and were able to clean out company bank accounts. In its conclusion, the article recommended, among other things, that business owners use personal bank accounts for their company online business. There were consumer protections for such online bank fraud that businesses didn't enjoy.
When money disappeared, especially when it was large amounts, the banks were often using legal recourse through the Uniform Commercial Code for business accounts. If the business computer didn't have adequate safeguards or the operators were negligent in some way, they wouldn't reimburse them for the online theft, which the article was claiming was a rapidly growing problem. Consumers were not held to the same standard.
I think the tax system is somewhat similar, at least in some respects. In a sole proprietor or a partnership the owners pay taxes on what passes through after the appropriate deductions. But a corporation pays corporate tax of up to 39% on any profits, which if passed on to the owners via dividends is taxed again to them as personal income. It is a double tax.
There are definitely advantages for corporations as well, but it's not ALL in their favor. Our tax system is a mess, a hodge podge of ever changing rules and regulations. A full employment act for politicians, accountants and tax lawyers.
JeffB:What is AE?
Austrian Economics
it's talking about holding the corporations that were involved with the Apartheid responsible for their crimes
I don't know much about that. South Africa had, and still has, abundant resources and can be pretty much self-sufficient. The whole episode in history is just a glaring example of socialist mercantilism utterly failing, even when it only needed to serve a few percent of the total population.
Not that we could get people to notice that, though...
im not quite sure what you mean by our legal system.
write your senator and ask them why the legal system that exists in the us(?) gives more rights, as you see it, to corporations...they vote on the legislation