wombatron: GilesStratton:Which is it now? Big business or corporations? The two are different, you know that. That's why I made the distinction. There are 2 different LL critiques, that of big business and that of the corporate form specifically, that often get conflated.
GilesStratton:Which is it now? Big business or corporations? The two are different, you know that.
That's why I made the distinction. There are 2 different LL critiques, that of big business and that of the corporate form specifically, that often get conflated.
Tell me the criticism of corporations, because I fully agree with you as regards big business.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
No libertarian will support subsidies. Your objection and mine to blackwater boeing et al, that see revenue from contract and subsidy from tax payers is indefensible obviously.
But even a corporation that benefits from a subsidy or a tax break, still lives and dies from the voluntary purchase of its services in the market.
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
GilesStratton:Tell me the criticism of corporations, because I fully agree with you as regards big business.
The criticisms of corporations, in a nutshell, are that legal personhood and limited liability wouldn't exist in a free market. I'm not completely sold on either point, although I have more problems with the former; I don't see any problems with limited liability joint-stock companies in a free market. I find Kinsella's arguments on this point to be the most convincing currently, although I think it is key to realize that he isn't defending today's corporate form (whether he realizes it or not).
Whether or not they would be prevalent is another question, and I don't really know. I think they wouldn't be as dominating as they are today, given the availability of alternatives, but, hey, let the market decide.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Juan:I'm pretty sure that if you fezwhatley were to knock ar Wal-Mart's door and ask them to support radical libertarianism they would throw you out of the window.
Thats meaningless. i can knock on 90% of peoples doors in America and ask them to support AC, and i would get kicked out. If i talked with the executives at walmart about abolishing the corporate income tax, and overtime pay i might get support. Even then, this remark is completely unscientific and faith based on your opinions of execs.
wombatron:The criticisms of corporations, in a nutshell, are that legal personhood and limited liability wouldn't exist in a free market. I'm not completely sold on either point, although I have more problems with the former; I don't see any problems with limited liability joint-stock companies in a free market. I find Kinsella's arguments on this point to be the most convincing currently, although I think it is key to realize that he isn't defending today's corporate form (whether he realizes it or not).
That seems reasonable.
fezwhatley:But even a corporation that benefits from a subsidy or a tax break, still lives and dies from the voluntary purchase of its services in the market.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
fezwhatley: No libertarian will support subsidies. Your objection and mine to blackwater boeing et al, that see revenue from contract and subsidy from tax payers is indefensible obviously. But even a corporation that benefits from a subsidy or a tax break, still lives and dies from the voluntary purchase of its services in the market.
This last sentence of yours thereby states these corporations are not libertarian. Again, am I practicing libertarianism completely? No, but as, I believe it was Juan, stated, if the corporation would provide legitimacy to libertarianism? That's the question asking of the practice, isn't it. I'm not asking anybody to sacrifice their lives in futility for the libertarian way to be enacted fully by all immediately. I'm thinking long term strategy. Spread the word on libertarianism, and thus, if we all go and try now, surely we all might die or we all might succeed in our refusal to participate with a criminal entity. But I have this feeling I would die or be imprisoned and thereby who would be left to spread the word? This is a thousands of years of struggling going on we all surely know. I'm thinking long term strategy.
Now is the corporation exchanging in the free market? Indeed. But is it a willing co-conspirator in its partnerships/contracts involving crimes?
The point isn't that existing businesses don't benefit extensively from state intervention. It's that defense of the capitalist structure itself does not make one a "vulgar libertarian." LLs believe all capitalist enterprises are unnatural and held up solely by state intervention. Thus, they think anyone with any sympathy for a capitalistic model is "vulgar."
As BrainPolice put it, "In the case of vulgar libertarianism, the normative assumption is that a large corporate structure and a wage system more or less along the lines of the current one is simply naturally superior to any other mode of economic organization, and hence it is simply assumed that everyone would inherently choose such a system."
This, of course, has nothing to do with what "vulgar libertarianism" was originally about. It's an anti-capitalist Trojan Horse under the guise of anti-vulgar-libertarianism.
What most of them really oppose is simply capitalist businesses, whether they're operating in a free market or not.
fezwhatley: Juan:I'm pretty sure that if you fezwhatley were to knock ar Wal-Mart's door and ask them to support radical libertarianism they would throw you out of the window. Thats meaningless. i can knock on 90% of peoples doors in America and ask them to support AC, and i would get kicked out. If i talked with the executives at walmart about abolishing the corporate income tax, and overtime pay i might get support. Even then, this remark is completely unscientific and faith based on your opinions of execs.
No, it's about a principle, property rights, that is, yes, perceived, and also reasoned to be moral. The perception is what provides legitimacy. I argue the State is unlawful and criminal. Yet, most Americans give a criminal entity, the State, legitimacy. Legitimacy is to be fully regarded in these exchanges and thus acts. Yet I don't think the reasoned aspect, though difficult to deny logic with people open to intellectual qualities, has been fully argued with each man and woman. And even then, how many times has reason been convincing. I'd imagine it was very difficult to convince slaves that worked the plantation their whole lives that they didn't need a master anymore. We are creatures of habit and the State has performed some powerful propaganda. So, yes, it is meaningful.
Cork:The point isn't that existing businesses don't benefit extensively from state intervention. It's that defense of the capitalist structure itself does not make one a "vulgar libertarian." LLs believe all capitalist enterprises are unnatural and held up solely by state intervention. Thus, they think anyone with any sympathy for a capitalistic model is "vulgar." As BrainPolice put it, "In the case of vulgar libertarianism, the normative assumption is that a large corporate structure and a wage system more or less along the lines of the current one is simply naturally superior to any other mode of economic organization, and hence it is simply assumed that everyone would inherently choose such a system." This, of course, has nothing to do with what "vulgar libertarianism" was originally about. It's an anti-capitalist Trojan Horse under the guise of anti-vulgar-libertarianism. What most of them really oppose is simply capitalist businesses, whether they're operating in a free market or not.
There is so much truth in this post, I re-quoted the whole thing and bolded relevant portions.
A few points, made in haste.
I've noticed that many anti-capitalists refer to profit as surplus. Profit is not a surplus. But they regard and treat it as such.
Notice that when you can get an anti-cap/LL to talk about their preferred economic system, there is usually a serious contradiction with the subjective theory of value.
You'll see that they reject rationally derived market based pricing, in return for something closer to the LTV, or inputs as a measure of price. While in theory, there might be a trend for prices to converge with input costs, I can tell you that as an entrepreneur, people will seek to engage in the most profitable industries, over the least profitable, creating a natural decrease in competition for low profit industries, and thus allowing prices to creep back up, until increased competition is attracted to force prices back down.
Many anti-cap/LLs seem to support labour in the same cartelized fashion they oppose in corporations. They say investors cannot organize as LLCs without the state, but my understanding of free markets is that if they organize their capital voluntarily by contract, and their customers voluntarily accept the terms of sale (limited liability), then they aren't offside with being an evolution of the free market.
There is also this bizarre notion I similarly addressed in the Sell The Roads thread, that when the state falls, corporate shareholders will lose title to their capital goods, and workers may freely take them over. This is revolutionary communism 101. It is anti-property rights. It also presumes, as noted by Cork above, that all capital accumulation by shareholders is inherently criminal, either by state licensing, or exploiting workers and/or customers. Ignoring the fact that if the workers choose to stay voluntarily, then they have no claim to exploitation. Certainly not in most western countries, where it is entirely possible to be an independent contractor or sole proprietor (albeit under the state).
And lastly (at this time) there is a larger anti-business focus than an anti-state focus. I think "we" as Austro-libertarians, understand that without a state monopoly on law and justice, the market would help sort out these offside firms. But in Chomsky-esque fashion, the anti-cap/LLs minimize the role the state has in market oppression, and overemphasize the role of business. It's like treating a symptom instead of the disease.
When I rail against LLs (less time for that nowadays, why give attention to the attention starved?) I'm not against the goals of their ideology as much as I am the dishonest manner they pretend to be libertarians, and then undermine private property rights, subjective value and free exchange.
I wonder how many of you who are upset about this regularly conflate communism, socialism, left-anarchism... and all the other varieties of leftism.
This is just in-group out-group bias. We libertarians, or rightists, are all different - but them lefties are all the same. And they do the same to us.
Gene L.:I wonder how many of you who are upset about this regularly conflate communism, socialism, left-anarchism... and all the other varieties of leftism.
Are you asking me this question?
I am perplexed now. I've alway thought that in a market anarchist society corporations would cease to exist. Could somebody explain this to me?
I did just explain it. Now tell me how this differs from your own understanding, so we can both learn and gain greater insight into the topic.
Why wouldn't corporations exist?
Backtrace your own reasoning.
liberty student: I did just explain it. Now tell me how this differs from your own understanding, so we can both learn and gain greater insight into the topic. Why wouldn't corporations exist? Backtrace your own reasoning.
Well from my understanding, in a market anarchist society there would me many decentralised and alway competing free market firms that would not resemble the current massive and stagnant hierachial corporations that we have today. Don't get me wrong. I believe that hiearchy is indeed necessary for any modern society to function and prosper, but I thought that the currently existing hiearchies were for the most part brought on by illegitimate state action. I don't know, how different will an AnCap society look from our current society?
So you're saying massive firms won't exist. Corporations are a form of legal entity. Not necessarily a huge firm.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
There is nothing essential about AnCap that proscribes the long-term success and growth of a company. Moreover, that a corporation has been around for a while does not make it "stagnant" so long as it has adapted to market demands.
Nick. B:Well from my understanding, in a market anarchist society there would me many decentralised and alway competing free market firms that would not resemble the current massive and stagnant hierachial corporations that we have today.
But you haven't explained how you got to this understanding.
Nick. B:Don't get me wrong. I believe that hiearchy is indeed necessary for any modern society to function and prosper, but I thought that the currently existing hiearchies were for the most part brought on by illegitimate state action.
The state provides police and fire service. Those aren't illegitimate because the state does them. What makes the state illegitimate is that it operates as a coercive monopoly on law and justice. So while corporations are created by law under a state monopoly, there is no reason (I can see) that it couldn't be duplicated in a voluntary free market. Limited Liability is just a contractual item to be negotiated like any other term from delivery, to price, etc.
Now whether there is a customer for a limited liability firm competing against full liability firms? Who knows? That's for the market to decide. If we could predict what the market wants, we could just skip the competitive process and go direct to outcomes. Oh wait, that's the theory behind statism...
Imagine you go to a free market theme park. You want to go on a ride. They ask you to sign a waiver limiting their liability if you get injured. You freely sign.
How is that different from voluntarily trading with a capital cartel who also asks for limited liability in their transactions selling dish detergent, roof repair or pants?
I don't see it.
Nick. B:I don't know, how different will an AnCap society look from our current society?
I don't worry about outcomes. I trust that while I do not know what the market will provide, because there is an incentive to make me happy (and profit from my happiness) that it will cater to my rational self interest.
Creativity and opportunity are going to create all sorts of positive and negative outcomes under a free market we can't even begin to imagine. But there will be a disincentive to produce a negative outcome, because it will be unprofitable.
Corporations would basically exist.
A good article on this:
http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=297
Who here has said all the different sects of leftism are the same? Of course there are differences. But they all end up the same dystopia in practice.
Nick, I have a genuine curiosity about how you came to this. If you don't want to respond publicly, could you send me a PM? I'd like to know because I am trying to trace where this notion came from, and to do so, I need to understand the rationale and sources behind it, because a lot of people seem to hold this idea, although I cannot figure out where it originated or with what argument as it's foundation.
liberty student: Nick. B:Well from my understanding, in a market anarchist society there would me many decentralised and alway competing free market firms that would not resemble the current massive and stagnant hierachial corporations that we have today. Nick, I have a genuine curiosity about how you came to this. If you don't want to respond publicly, could you send me a PM? I'd like to know because I am trying to trace where this notion came from, and to do so, I need to understand the rationale and sources behind it, because a lot of people seem to hold this idea, although I cannot figure out where it originated or with what argument as it's foundation.
Oh sure Liberty Student, sorry it took me so long to answer. Well I must concede that I never really dwelved in depth on this subject and came to my conclusions on the basis of two admittedly informal and sloppy deductions: 1) conversing with other market anarchist on other sites and 2) just my confused understanding of what a corporation is. I've alway thought that corporations were institutions created by the state and not of the market and would thus disappear. I can see now that I made a grave mistake in reasoning. And again I am truly sorry it took me so long to answer.
liberty student: Nick B.: Well from my understanding, in a market anarchist society there would be many decentralised and alway competing free market firms that would not resemble the current massive and stagnant hierachial corporations that we have today. ...I am trying to trace where this notion came from, and to do so, I need to understand the rationale and sources behind it, because a lot of people seem to hold this idea, although I cannot figure out where it originated or with what argument as it's foundation.
Nick B.: Well from my understanding, in a market anarchist society there would be many decentralised and alway competing free market firms that would not resemble the current massive and stagnant hierachial corporations that we have today.
Nick. B: And again I am truly sorry it took me so long to answer.
No worries. So you would say it was probably a combination of misunderstanding and the telephone game then. Makes sense. I don't know any libertarian/anarchists who have incorporated and hold this view, likely because they understand the process of incorporation more intimately.
Thanks for writing back.
Juan:Do you think Nick's belief is outlandish ?
I think it is wrong. I think Kinsella, Cork and I have made that very clear. I think now that Nick better understands it, he may also believe it no longer holds true.
Juan:The current system is mercantilistic/is a mixed economy. Big firms are subsidized so they can be bigger and more bureaucratic than they would be under more competition. So, remove legal privileges and big firms will be forced to reorganize along more decentralized lines. On the ohter hand, that doesn't mean that big firms are not possible in a real free-market. But I doubt they will be the same firms that thrive in a mixed economy. Remove the privileges the banking/financial mafia enjoys and you'll probably see how they cease to be the "masters of the universe" as Bill Bonner jokingly calls them.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't really care. If there is justice in the system, property rights/no coercion, then I don't care what firms emerge, how they are structured etc. I know the only way they will persist and be successful, will be to please me as a consumer.
I think it is wrong.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't really care.
Juan:You asked a question and when you got an answer (that you don't seem to like?) you say I don't care ?
What answer didn't I like? I explained to you, I care more about being satisfied as a consumer in the marketplace than the size or capital structure of the firm I deal with.
My issue with refuting the misconception that corporations can't exist outside of the state, is to highlight that the people who promote such views are anti-capitalists, not free market libertarians, and as such, they should be exposed for what they are. Either ignorant or deliberately dishonest.
in a market anarchist society there would be many decentralised and alway competing free market firms that would not resemble the current massive and stagnant hierachial corporations that we have today.
I explained to you, I care more about being satisfied as a consumer in the marketplace than the size or capital structure of the firm I deal with.
Juan:That doesn't mean that big firms are not possible in a real free-market. But I doubt they will be the same firms that thrive in a mixed economy. Remove the privileges the banking/financial mafia enjoys and you'll probably see how they cease to be the "masters of the universe" as Bill Bonner jokingly calls them.
That's how I see it. While I believe that in an market anarchist society some things will stay the same, I also believe some things will be very, very different. I do see alot of different types of businness models existing in market anarchy along with the current corporation, and as a result society will look much different in many ways.
Juan, we don't disagree, but you seem to make a point of constantly trying to create debate where none exists. You might have that time to invest, and I did previously, but no more. You'll have to find some other sucker to play ring-around-the-rosie with.
Juan:Nick is not saying that the world would by run by coops either
And I never said that, so it is a strawman.
Nick. B:While I believe that in an market anarchist society some things will stay the same
Opps. Meant to say that " I believe NOW". Got to give it more thought though.
Nick. B: Nick. B:While I believe that in an market anarchist society some things will stay the same Opps. Meant to say that " I believe NOW". Got to give it more thought though.
I don't think it's that things will stay the same. There might not end up being any corporations. I don't profess to know. But I do know that corporations as we understand them, can exist in a voluntary society.
I'm always highly skeptical of anyone who tells me "how it will work in a free society", just as I have really lost my taste for responding to questions like "who will build the roads?"
I trust in the market. The people who will prosper in the market will be the ones who satisfy my needs and wants at a price I an afford. The free market guarantees nothing.
And that is why it is beautiful, because if we could conceptualize the outcomes, structures and hierarchies of a free market world, we could just implement it with the state and skip the whole messy competition aspect. In a sense, this is what the anarcho-socialists believe. Their communes, while voluntary, seek to avoid open competition, and instead encourage concensus.
liberty student:And that is why it is beautiful, because if we could conceptualize the outcomes, structures and hierarchies of a free market world, we could just implement it with the state and skip the whole messy competition aspect.
Interesting, could you clarify?
Nick. B:Interesting, could you clarify?
Competition will shape what firms survive and what firms do not. Competition will shape prices, it will direct resources, it will reward firms that serve their customers well.
We can't conceptualize the free market, because we cannot begin to understand the complexity of the decisions of single actor, let alone millions or billions of actors in the aggregate.
So to say "the free market will be this" or "the free market will have firms like that", is somewhat ridiculous. No one knows. If they can't predict what an unfree market wants, how could they possibly predict what a free market wants? And even if they could, a free market is flexible and can change, unlike a statist market that is always striving to keep things static and status quo.
My only point about corporations are, they are not the product of an involuntary state. The same structure can be replicated voluntarily. Will it be? I don't know. Will it succeed? I don't know. Will there be lots or few? Will they be big or small? I don't know. Anyone who says they do, is full of crap IMO.
liberty student:My only point about corporations are, they are not the product of an involuntary state. The same structure can be replicated voluntarily. Will it be? I don't know. Will it succeed? I don't know. Will there be lots or few? Will they be big or small? I don't know. Anyone who says they do, is full of crap IMO.
The idea that Walmart could not exist without corporate law is ridiculous, it would simply be integrated into the Walton family if not organized as a joint stock company; as was always the case before the invention of the joint stock.
Of course, incorporation offers advantages for both the Walton's and their creditors, so is embraced.
Peace
Nick. B:Oh sure Liberty Student, sorry it took me so long to answer. Well I must concede that I never really dwelved in depth on this subject and came to my conclusions on the basis of two admittedly informal and sloppy deductions: 1) conversing with other market anarchist on other sites and 2) just my confused understanding of what a corporation is. I've alway thought that corporations were institutions created by the state and not of the market and would thus disappear. I can see now that I made a grave mistake in reasoning. And again I am truly sorry it took me so long to answer.
Do remember that there is a difference between big business and between corporations, and also between what is usually meant by "big business" and large firms per se. And also there is a difference between saying that large firms rely indirectly on the state, and saying that large firms are inherently evil.
Juan:The current system is mercantilistic/is a mixed economy. Big firms are subsidized so they can be bigger and more bureaucratic than they would be under more competition. So, remove legal privileges and big firms will be forced to reorganize along more decentralized lines.
So are smaller firms, this has be done before. Klein and Kinsella ran circles around Carson and Long, not suprisingly either (Block's answer was very poor). The fact of the matter is that you can point to numerous ways in which the government harms big businesses at the expense of smaller ones, and likewise you point to how big business is subsidized at the expense of smaller ones.
Here's the fact of the matter, as much as the anticapitalists would love it to be so, there are reasons why banks, insurance companies, car producers will always be big.
So are smaller firms, this has be done before. Klein and Kinsella ran circles around Carson and Long, not suprisingly either (Block's answer was very poor).
Juan:So are smaller firms, this has be done before. Klein and Kinsella ran circles around Carson and Long, not suprisingly either (Block's answer was very poor). Small businesses are subsidized as well. IT DOES NOT FOLLOW, however, that this invalidates the analysis for big businesses. So...try again.
Well, either you're going to have to show that small business who have been subsidized are bigger than they would have otherwise been or you'll have to admit that subsidies don't affect the size of the business.