JCFolsom: JonBostwick:How can a church own something? Its just a building! Indeed, a church can own nothing. The pope can own it, or the priest, or the parishoners. That non-profit religious corporations are said to exist does not have any bearing on whether corporations exist. This isn't the first time you brought this up, and I have no idea where you're going with it.
JonBostwick:How can a church own something? Its just a building!
Indeed, a church can own nothing. The pope can own it, or the priest, or the parishoners. That non-profit religious corporations are said to exist does not have any bearing on whether corporations exist. This isn't the first time you brought this up, and I have no idea where you're going with it.
Obviously.
Lets say a church goes bankrupt. Can its creditors knock on the door of any person who has ever put money in the plate? That is limited liability.
A church being owned by the parishoners is no different than a company being own by shareholders.
JCFolsom: I don't even think you could buy 10% of its profits in perpetuity, because the business is inseperable and identical to the people doing business, and that would therefore be a loan in exchange for partial slavery. Block thinks that's okay, but I don't.
You can't enslave capital.
Peace
JonBostwick: Oh yeah.... the "union" where the American Government acknowledges the existence of an organization a thousand years older than itself...wow...
Oh yeah.... the "union" where the American Government acknowledges the existence of an organization a thousand years older than itself...wow...
We're not talking about merely aknowledging the existance of an organization but giving it a special legal status and economic privilege. That's what is at issue, and to construe it otherwise is deceptive.
JonBostwick:Oh yeah.... the "union" where the American Government acknowledges the existence of an organization a thousand years older than itself...wow...
You really don't get individualist philosophy, do you Jon? You don't get that words like "corporation", "organization", and "church" are just convenient shorthand for what is really just a long chain of a lot of individuals that shared similar beliefs, practices, or terms and passed what was effectively their property from one to the next. There is actually no Catholic Church. Well, there is one, several actually, but they're just buildings. There are Catholics who choose to come together and call themselves a church. They establish certain hierarchies between themselves, but the only thing that's real, the only thing that's really there, is the people, the individual people. All collective nouns are convenient fictions, which ought have no moral standing of any sort in themselves.
Most of the collectivist nouns, such as business, is only falsely applied as a noun. You do not have a business, not really. You do business. You don't have an organization, you organize with others. The result is not an entity, but an action maintained only by the will and effort of individuals. Our view of collective fictions as actual entities is a delusion, an insanity that has plagued us for centuries and has caused huge error and suffering. Government and nation are themselves collectivist "entities", fictions, the most pernicious of all, to be sure, but not the only ones, and only the chiefs amongst the demons of the human mind with a vast array of lesser evil deceits which serve and feed off of them.
Brainpolice: JonBostwick: Oh yeah.... the "union" where the American Government acknowledges the existence of an organization a thousand years older than itself...wow... We're not talking about merely aknowledging the existance of an organization but giving it a special legal status and economic privilege. That's what is at issue, and to construe it otherwise is deceptive.
You've already stated that recognizing the Church's ownership of property is a privilege.
Perhaps you elaborate on this "special" status and cure me of my ignorance.
JCFolsom: All collective nouns are convenient fictions, which ought have no moral standing of any sort in themselves.
Nonsense. Common ownership is fact.
JonBostwick:Lets say a church goes bankrupt. Can its creditors knock on the door of any person who has ever put money in the plate? That is limited liability.
Donating to clergy or for building maintenance does not imply partial ownership of the fictional entity that is the "church". I can give you money for a service, it doesn't mean I own part of you.
JonBostwick:A church being owned by the parishoners is no different than a company being own by shareholders.
True enough. But buildings can't actually incur debts (yes, I know you meant the fiction; that debt belongs to someone, not the fictional entity).
JonBostwick:I don't even think you could buy 10% of its profits in perpetuity, because the business is inseperable and identical to the people doing business, and that would therefore be a loan in exchange for partial slavery. Block thinks that's okay, but I don't. You can't enslave capital.
I don't even think you could buy 10% of its profits in perpetuity, because the business is inseperable and identical to the people doing business, and that would therefore be a loan in exchange for partial slavery. Block thinks that's okay, but I don't.
Cash ain't capital, and neither are people. If I buy 10% of a tractor and demand 10% of the profits made with that tractor in return, I suppose that would work, but business itself is defined and embodied only by the people doing it.
JonBostwick: JCFolsom: All collective nouns are convenient fictions, which ought have no moral standing of any sort in themselves. Nonsense. Common ownership is fact.
True. We all own the land in common (in my opinion). However, we own it each as individuals. We do not own it as "humanity". We may get together and start doing business, organizing as partners. We may each have 50% rights to a building. We may, for convenience, call our grouping a name, "Sharp and Dullard", for instance, but we will truly be naming our continuing choice and action to work organized as partners. We have not thus established an entity.
JCFolsom: JonBostwick:Lets say a church goes bankrupt. Can its creditors knock on the door of any person who has ever put money in the plate? That is limited liability. Donating to clergy or for building maintenance does not imply partial ownership of the fictional entity that is the "church". I can give you money for a service, it doesn't mean I own part of you.
Ownership is irrevelent to liability. I am not responsible for the damage I do with my car becauses I am its owner. If I do damage with a borrowed car I am still liable. If someone steals my car, I am not liable. If you really want to hold stockholders liable simply because they own the company you're naive.
But I suspect the real reason you want to hold them liable is because of their role in creating(or profiting from) the company. In this way shareholders are no different from those who fund a church.
JCFolsom:Cash ain't capital
Ha.
JCFolsom: but business itself is defined and embodied only by the people doing it.
And no person is prevented from quiting.
JCFolsom:True. We all own the land in common (in my opinion).
By the way, what happens when humans colonize other planets? Do all humans own Jupiter in common?
JonBostwick: By the way, what happens when humans colonize other planets? Do all humans own Jupiter in common?
A side note. Can't really hack it on the main point, can you? Collective entities don't exist. You now appear to be merely holding your ears and singing "La la la". Are you, like really devoted to the Catholic Church or something? Do you have a religious belief that demands you believe in fictitious entities that stem from mere intellectual laziness?
JonBostwick:Ownership is irrevelent to liability. I am not responsible for the damage I do with my car becauses I am its owner. If I do damage with a borrowed car I am still liable. If someone steals my car, I am not liable. If you really want to hold stockholders liable simply because they own the company you're naive.
If someone steals your car, no, you are not liable. If you let them borrow your car, yes, you are. The driver will still be liable for whatever hijinks they did, but you will be liable for lending your car to someone who was unreliable. Lesson is, don't lend your car to someone, even if the car has almost no value in and of itself, unless you really, really trust them.
JonBostwick:But I suspect
Don't ever just base an argument on a suspicion, or you will (as you do frequently and have here) just set up a strawman, and look either disingenous or a fool. Argue against exactly what I say, and let me correct myself if I stated things wrongly.
JonBostwick:the real reason you want to hold them liable is because of their role in creating(or profiting from) the company. In this way shareholders are no different from those who fund a church.
You would be wrong.
JonBostwick: JCFolsom: but business itself is defined and embodied only by the people doing it. And no person is prevented from quiting.
Again, OK. So what is your point? You have some sort of short in your logic circuit, friend.
JCFolsom: If someone steals your car, no, you are not liable. If you let them borrow your car, yes, you are. The driver will still be liable for whatever hijinks they did, but you will be liable for lending your car to someone who was unreliable. Lesson is, don't lend your car to someone, even if the car has almost no value in and of itself, unless you really, really trust them.
Byzantine:Too ineffective. Corporations don't pay taxes; they collect taxes.
Here all firms must pay IRC (generally 25% on profits). We generally also call the police, municipe and stuff as corporations, but I guess because they are part of the state, they are exempt.
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
Byzantine:Contracts themselves are just pieces of paper in reality. For that matter, law itself is an abstract concept with no existence outside of people's minds. The legal fictionhood of corporations does not mean they are invalid.
Byzantine:Legally fictional entities are entirely consistent with the free market. When you do business with an entity that is duly registered and has an "Inc." or "Co." in its name, you are agreeing to forego legal action against the individual shareholders in the event of a breach. If you don't want to limit your remedies, then don't do business with corporations. This legal arrangement would persist in an anarchist state, just as deeds to property, wills and trusts, etc. Contracts themselves are just pieces of paper in reality. For that matter, law itself is an abstract concept with no existence outside of people's minds. The legal fictionhood of corporations does not mean they are invalid.
You could have written into a contract that the person (you can only make contracts with real people) has their liability limited to a certain amount, but it must be explicit. You can't just tack a "Co." onto a name and hold me to those terms by it. "Duly registered" doesn't mean crap to me, unless I somehow am already in a contract that includes such a recognition in it. Only governments can force you to recognize such registrations. Also, if your "corporation" does something at your direction that ends up causing me harm, for which you could be held liable, I can sue you directly unless I have some sort of explicit contract that says I can't. In any case where no contract was existent, you are fully liable. You may have a contract with others which says they must cover your costs, but that means nothing for how I have to deal with you.
Contracts are just agreements between people. Laws are just principles which guide your actions. Both are principals, ways that entities agree to interact with one another. Neither purports to be entities in and of themselves. Corporations do, and this is a falsehood.
How many squirrels does it take to make a good stew? Can I substitute or mix raccoons?
Byzantine:Here are your choices:
LOL, Priceless!! Absolutely well said.
Anonymous Coward: Without a state to create a stable system of laws, provide at least modest physical security, property rights, (which are just as fictional as "intellectual property" rights) commonly usable infrastructure (roads, telecommunications, water, garbage, etc) and a stable currency, there is no economy to speak of. There has been study after study to demonstrate this.
Without a state to create a stable system of laws, provide at least modest physical security, property rights, (which are just as fictional as "intellectual property" rights) commonly usable infrastructure (roads, telecommunications, water, garbage, etc) and a stable currency, there is no economy to speak of. There has been study after study to demonstrate this.
Which explains perfectly why governments borrowed from private common law procedures for much of their laws, doesn't it? I agree that a stable system of law and order is necessary for a prosperous economy and even society in general, but I disagree that governments are necessary to create such law and order. If anything, the more goverment we get, the less order we have and the more chaos we seem to have.
Byzantine:Here are your choices: 1. You can live in an anarchist city-state and enjoy the high living standards of a complex economy where risk-spreading mechanisms such as corporations, mutual insurers, trusts, etc. enjoy the protection of their wealthy and well-armed merchant class patrons. 2. You can move out to that non-arable land nobody wants where on a good day you and all the other radical individualists may be able to kill enough squirrels to render into a stew. In the event a traveling salesman happens along the dirt path in front of your hovel, you can haul out your 10,000 page Contract Between Me Individually And All The Rest Of Creation and see if he'll agree to it.
1. You can live in an anarchist city-state and enjoy the high living standards of a complex economy where risk-spreading mechanisms such as corporations, mutual insurers, trusts, etc. enjoy the protection of their wealthy and well-armed merchant class patrons.
2. You can move out to that non-arable land nobody wants where on a good day you and all the other radical individualists may be able to kill enough squirrels to render into a stew. In the event a traveling salesman happens along the dirt path in front of your hovel, you can haul out your 10,000 page Contract Between Me Individually And All The Rest Of Creation and see if he'll agree to it.
Or, I can live in an anarchist city, cut the state, associate with a guild/company where each member is an independent contractor with certain assurances and insurances we negotiate with one another. It is always sad when people resort to this sort of utilitarian argument. You use it to justify corporations. Others can use it to justify slavery or eugenics. You're in good company.
Byzantine:Corporations enable impersonal exchange. Without legal constructs such as corporations, you can only do business with people in a tightly-knit social network such as family, like in southern Italy, Mexico, etc. The fact that abstract concepts are accepted and enforced means there's a rule of law the merchant class can rely upon.
Three words: Mercan til ism. "Merchant class" my ass. There are things, folks, that a stateless society can't handle as efficiently as one with states. However, what is right and just is little effected by what is efficient. It was, of course, efficient for the factories of the industrial revolution to pack people who had been forcefully dispossessed of farmland into hot, windowless factories for 14 hours a day. There are many cases where treating humans as "human resources", as cogs in your corporate machine, in other words, is efficient.
However, you're really just speculating here, because we have not had a modern world with modern technology without corporations, and whether or not such government-enforced monopoly-producing lies would actually be the most efficient way of doing things (inasmuch as they were even possible) in a free society is still in question. I think we ought to at least try for what is just and true instead of discarding it because we're afraid of what might happen.
Byzantine:This is why the West enjoys high living standards and the Third World has flat, inefficient economies where nobody can trade outside their network.
The West enjoys high living standards because our government is not made of dictatorial bastards who simply claim to own all the land (and have the thugs to back that claim) and drain every resource for their personal profit until they're ousted by some revolutionary who promptly starts to do the same thing.
Byzantine:And who's going to invest in things like mass production and rail lines if they know their $10K investment will render them liable for somebody losing their leg a thousand miles away?
You shouldn't claim to own more than you can control.
Merchant Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_merchant
"1. You can live in an anarchist city-state"
This statement is nonsensical. There are no states in anarchism.
"risk-spreading mechanisms such as corporations, mutual insurers, trusts, etc"
You speak as if these are the only possibilities. You also speak as if this is all the natural result of a free market. In either case, I prefer risk to be internalized, not externalized. The degree of externalization you're talking about is only possible with corporatist interventionism.
"enjoy the protection of their wealthy and well-armed merchant class patrons."
Where does a "merchant class" come into anarchism?
"taxes are extortion,but if you must tax, tax corporations and not the people and never allow government the right to take your property without due compensation"
The only fair tax there is would be a poll tax, levied at the rate of your property.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
Byzantine:They are the ones who will fund the private arbitration and mutual defense agencies. These agencies, in turn, will assure that angry philosophy students who try to pursue claims against individual shareholders are rebuffed.
I see, and how, praytell, shall the "merchant class" get such money as to fund private armies to fend off the philosophers you so deride?
Unless those students own shares in the PDA...
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
JCFolsom: I see, and how, praytell, shall the "merchant class" get such money as to fund private armies to fend off the philosophers you so deride?
If I am following correctly, it will be the cost of doing business.
liberty student:If I am following correctly, it will be the cost of doing business.
Well, right, but what makes people think that middlemen will be so popular that they'll be able to constitute an entire class?
I believe he is talking about an investor/entrepreneurial class. Their popularity will be relative to their ability to conduct commerce and produce profit.
I'm just filling in here. Byzantine might have had other thoughts in mind. These are my random blabberings on the topic.
Byzantine:They are the same class that get commerce done today while economics and philosophy students debate abstract models. Businesspeople like risk-spreading and investment income, so that's what's going to be done. And if there isn't a government around to guarantee contract enforcement and limited liabilty, then they'll hire Blackwater instead.
Stunning. Incredible. So, you are advocating we get rid of government to replace it with a "private" ruling class that forces people into accepting their preferred injustices with their private armies? Why not have their mercenaries enforce that they have no liability, at least not to the suckers that have to work for or buy from them? Why would I do business with such people? Why would anyone... unless you plan to have your Blackwater thugs enforce monopolies as well?
You seem to admire the rapacious business owners of today, the CEOs, the landlords. People who benefit from, and lobby to sustain, government restrictions on the market, effectively enforcing their monopolies. You are no anarchist. You are a corporatist. You would replace the corrupted politicians of today with the even more corrupt merchant princes of old. No doubt you think the East India Trading Company had a great business model, eh?
JCFolsom: Stunning. Incredible. So, you are advocating we get rid of government to replace it with a "private" ruling class that forces people into accepting their preferred injustices with their private armies? Why not have their mercenaries enforce that they have no liability, at least not to the suckers that have to work for or buy from them? Why would I do business with such people? Why would anyone... unless you plan to have your Blackwater thugs enforce monopolies as well? You seem to admire the rapacious business owners of today, the CEOs, the landlords. People who benefit from, and lobby to sustain, government restrictions on the market, effectively enforcing their monopolies. You are no anarchist. You are a corporatist. You would replace the corrupted politicians of today with the even more corrupt merchant princes of old. No doubt you think the East India Trading Company had a great business model, eh?
That's not at all what he is advocating if I understand it correctly. Why are you being so melodramatic?
You won't do business with firms who try to deal heavy handedly. No one is forcing you to. If they do force you to, that is immoral and wrong.
I think anarchists forget that in the absence of government, liberty still must be defended by everyone who wishes to attain and maintain it. There are still going to be thieves, liars, war mongers and other such dastardly characters. Government makes them stronger, it does not create greed, envy and evil exclusively.
liberty student:That's not at all what he is advocating if I understand it correctly. Why are you being so melodramatic? You won't do business with firms who try to deal heavy handedly. No one is forcing you to. If they do force you to, that is immoral and wrong. I think anarchists forget that in the absence of government, liberty still must be defended by everyone who wishes to attain and maintain it. There are still going to be thieves, liars, war mongers and other such dastardly characters. Government makes them stronger, it does not create greed, envy and evil exclusively.
Enforcing limited liability without a contract to that effect is an act of tyranny. It is one person saying to another, "If I wrong you, you may collect damages only to the degree I specify." That is nonsense.
JCFolsom:Enforcing limited liability without a contract to that effect is an act of tyranny. It is one person saying to another, "If I wrong you, you may collect damages only to the degree I specify." That is nonsense.
I really don't understand your point. It's like you're arguing just to argue.
Limited liability is the choice of the shareholders/investors/entrepreneurs. If we believe in freedom and property rights, they are free to specify how liable they are willing to be to their suppliers, shareholders, consumers etc. If they will not be responsible to an acceptable level, the market will punish them either on the investment side, the consumptive side or both.
However, they are entitled to construct any sort of bad business model, and to pay for the enforcement of their contractual terms.
Anything which exceeds or diminishes the contract is clearly illegal, and arguing about such, seems circular. If they use force to push limited liability where none contractually exists, that is clearly wrong. Of course in the real world, the guy with the best PDA/Mercs and the most money will rule. It may be immoral and unethical, but that doesn't mean it may not happen.
Feudalism is, surprise, surprise, NOT anarchy. So, you will merely be the next system of governance that true anarchists will war against in whatever method seems best, if you succeed. You probably won't, though. Why hire a PDA when you can carry a gun? PDAs, like current police forces, can't really protect you. They can't be everywhere at once. If I intend to mug you, I'll wait until the guard passes on his patrol. Not only that, but the investigative powers of a PDA would be very limited relative to the powers available to police today. And, having worked as a security guard, and knowing the history of mercenaries in general, I can tell you that people will rarely severely risk their lives for the sake of a paycheck. After all, you can't spend it if you're dead.
So, you've got a pack of polyester-uniformed security guards pretending to protect would-be merchant princes against an angry band of freedom fanatics who don't want to accept your new enforcement of class structure, and a populace who has to decide between them. The merchant princes who say, "To do business with us or even live in OUR town you have to live by our rules and we can stomp on you and you'll get $10 max for it" or the anarchists who say "If another wrongs you, you may seek compensation from him to the degree justice allows. Oh, yeah, and you can live in whatever damn town you want."
What you propose is worse than the current system. Corporations already rule, but you would have them do it overtly rather than through their middle man of government. You are the enemies of liberty.
I used to be against the corporate structure for a business until I realized that it is a voluntary contract. If I do not take part in the management of the business activites then why should I be completely liable for what the manager does, especially if we worked that out in the contract I made with them. If I am liable then I must also be liable for what my bank does with it's loans since I lent them money in a certificate of deposit and they give me an interest (just like a dividend for shareholders) in what they did with the money.
Also the common law does allow for owners of stock to be liable in scenarios where they did take part in the business activity and did not act like a creditor usually does. In the United States this common law doctrine is called "Piercing the Veil" and in England it is called "Lifting the Veil".
JCFolsom: You are the enemies of liberty.
You are the enemies of liberty.
And we would never hire you to be our security guard.