Current Events

Re: Vandarchy

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:59:38 GMT

That is, unless defence or insurance agencies include recognition of LLCs as a term in their contracts. Liability as a matter of tort law still exists, and just because a shareholder is not liable for a criminal action does not mean someone closer to directing the firm's activities isn't. But that isn't important: what is important is that the assets are still owned.

-Jon

Re: Vandarchy

JCFolsom — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:09:47 GMT

JCFolsom:
A bowler on a team would probably say, "We all own that _______". That's collective ownership.

To clarify, what I meant here was it is not OK steal or vandalize a piece of property that is owned by more than one actual person. This contrasts with property which is owned by a fictional person.

Re: Vandarchy

Paul — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 06:59:22 GMT

JCFolsom:

Nicely asking the FedEx driver to leave the car would not be an aggressive act; I don't know what you mean by "Nicely". And, once you asked him if he owned the truck, and he said, "No, FedEx does," yes, ethically, it's fine to take it.

A bowler on a team would probably say, "We all own that _______". That's collective ownership. The knowledgable shareholder would say the corporation owns the asset. So, ethically it's fine to break it.

You have some weird definition of the word "ethical", is all I can say.

Re: Vandarchy

JCFolsom — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 05:25:49 GMT

Nicely asking the FedEx driver to leave the car would not be an aggressive act; I don't know what you mean by "Nicely". And, once you asked him if he owned the truck, and he said, "No, FedEx does," yes, ethically, it's fine to take it.

A bowler on a team would probably say, "We all own that _______". That's collective ownership. The knowledgable shareholder would say the corporation owns the asset. So, ethically it's fine to break it.

Re: Vandarchy

Anonymous Coward — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 05:04:46 GMT

JCFolsom:
In general, carjacking someone means holding a gun in the driver's face. That is an aggressive act. You're strawman-building skills improve by the day.

So doing a drive-by on the bowling team's property is OK but 'nicely' asking the Kinko's driver to remove himself from the car so you can homestead it isn't? And as you said earlier firebombing the car is a valid form of homesteading.

This whole thread is about justifying violent acts against corporations.

The entire thread is one giant strawman...

Re: Vandarchy

JCFolsom — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 04:51:40 GMT

In general, carjacking someone means holding a gun in the driver's face. That is an aggressive act. You're strawman-building skills improve by the day.

All I'm saying is you can't have it both ways. You can't have ultimate control without also having ultimate responsibility. That does little to change the fact that, in participating in the modern corporate systems, current shareholders disavow personal ownership of corporate assets. It's part of their agreement, don't you see? So, I take them at their word. They don't own it, because they say they don't. Who am I to argue?

Re: Vandarchy

Anonymous Coward — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 04:35:08 GMT

JCFolsom:

Contractual obligations are not the only obligations possible to a property owner. Damage by abuse or negligence to uncontracted parties is also the owner's responsibility.

And carjacking the Kinko's delivery guy satisfies this how exactly?

The most you are going to manage to prove is that limited liability is a false concept and the shareholders are the true owners and controllers of the corporation which pretty much defeats your 'unowned corporate asset' argument thereby disproving your justification in favor of theft and violence against corporations.

This is what happens when you argue from both sides of an issue.

Re: Vandarchy

JCFolsom — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 04:11:02 GMT

Contractual obligations are not the only obligations possible to a property owner. Damage by abuse or negligence to uncontracted parties is also the owner's responsibility.

Re: Vandarchy

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 03:40:16 GMT

Evaded? No, I just do not waste time on questions that have already been answered. Does the shareholder exercise full control over the corporation's resources? No. They delegate it. Hence their liability is accordingly limited. We've already been over assenting to the LLC's terms, so I'm not going to reiterate what I said on that. You chose to deal with the LLC knowingly, so you have no right to go after the shareholders if something goes wrong. Where is the problem in this? What exactly is your issue with the corporation structuring control over its resources as it does? Your understanding of ownership is merely simplistic and too black and white. The shareholders merely have a partial right to its resources.

-Jon

Re: Vandarchy

JCFolsom — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 03:30:12 GMT

If that is the case, then I fail to see how your definition to delegate control has any ultimate bearing on someone your corporation wrongs. You chose to delegate, and you could choose to cease doing so at any time. Your delegation, in the end, is a risk you were willing to take to spare yourself some hassle, or because you owned something too large to effectively control. Perhaps you have a contract with the manager that he will be responsible for all debts, but, if what you say is true, then if the manager does not have enough money to cover your responsibility, the injured party has every right to go after you. You take the benefit of ownership... you must take responsibility for it too.

Which is it? Do they have ultimate ownership, thus control, and thus responsibility, or not. You have evaded and evaded. Define your terms. Or does ownership have no real meaning?

Re: Vandarchy

nskinsella — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:50:52 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

Yeah, but he never said no one owns the corporation, because that would be ridiculous - nor did he say a fictional entity owns anything. The shareholders merely delegate the right to control its resources. That's what his post explained: the structural breakdown of control within the corporation. Having delegated this power, they also limit their liability (because they are not effectively the decisionmakers, in spite of the legal designation that attaches to them.) Which makes perfect sense. IMO what he was saying was that taking government labels for granted is what causes confusion over this matter.

-Jon

Of course, you are right. I simply said we don't have to take the state's classification as holy writ. Ownership--right to control--is divided and spread out. Shareholders are partial owners.

Re: Vandarchy

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:15:46 GMT

Yeah, but he never said no one owns the corporation, because that would be ridiculous - nor did he say a fictional entity owns anything. The shareholders merely delegate the right to control its resources. That's what his post explained: the structural breakdown of control within the corporation. Having delegated this power, they also limit their liability (because they are not effectively the decisionmakers, in spite of the legal designation that attaches to them.) Which makes perfect sense. IMO what he was saying was that taking government labels for granted is what causes confusion over this matter.

-Jon

Re: Vandarchy

JCFolsom — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:53:00 GMT

Jon Irenicus:
He said the shareholders cannot be considered the only individuals to which ownership accrues - he didn't say there are no owners or that a fictional entity owns property. Notice, Kinsella is defining ownership as the right to control a resource. So it follows whoever has such a right under a LLC arrangement is effectively an owner - i.e. whomever the shareholders delegate this power to.

It seemed quite clear to me that he was questioning the validity of the definition of shareholders as owners as a government fallacy. What do you have that contradicts that? Not that they were the sole owners, but owners at all, was my impression.

Jon Irenicus:
And notice I said "knowingly" with regard to dealing with an LLC. All they need to do is to inform their patrons of what this means. Once it's done, and once the patron has gone through with the transaction, they've consented to the LLC's terms.

Then we have no dispute on this issue. As long as they provide all the information about what the "LLC" in their name means beforehand, they are absolutely entitled to go forward with contracts assuming that's understood and agreed to. What I objected to was the idea, perhaps mistakenly perceived by me, that a person should be bound by the LLC without any further notice than simply the appearance of those letters in a company's name. I can quote what Kinsella said that gave me that impression, if you like.

Re: Vandarchy

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:18:05 GMT

He said the shareholders cannot be considered the only individuals to which ownership accrues - he didn't say there are no owners or that a fictional entity owns property. Notice, Kinsella is defining ownership as the right to control a resource. So it follows whoever has such a right under a LLC arrangement is effectively an owner - i.e. whomever the shareholders delegate this power to.

And notice I said "knowingly" with regard to dealing with an LLC. All they need to do is to inform their patrons of what this means. Once it's done, and once the patron has gone through with the transaction, they've consented to the LLC's terms.

-Jon

Re: Vandarchy

JCFolsom — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:46:07 GMT

Jon Irenicus:
I'm sure you could have a patch of road if you wanted it. But I was speaking about what is likely, and by dint of economic efficiency, HOAs are best suited to manage or even own roads.

Well, maybe so. That being said, the longer a road you try to establish the more likely that you will run into situations where extending the road further becomes quite cost-prohibitive, either because you need to pay extremely high prices to the land owners or even have to build around them. This will impose some severe limits on the area any producer can supply.

Jon Irenicus:
Who said there are no owners, though? Ownership is simply spread out, as Kinsella elucidated. There's no "fictional" entity owning anything.

Really? Is that what he said? Let's take a look...

nskinsella:
Ownership means the right to control a resource. If you are a Google shareholder, does that give you the right to enter their office building? No. You don't have the (direct) right of control.

nskinsella:
Just because the shareholder is called "the owner" by the state's classifications is meaningless.

nskinsella:
Asserting that owners are responsible for harm "caused by" their property is just that--an unsupported assertion. And accepting the state's classification of the stockholder as an "owner" is no way to make a libertarian argument.

That kinda looks like he's saying that the identification of shareholders as owners is a falsehood. That being the case, who do you think ARE the owners?

Jon Irenicus:
If you do business with the firm, knowing it's an LLC, what real excuse do you have for protesting its status? Not much, really. No one forced your hand to do business with it.

How do I know it's an LLC? How do I know what that means? Am I supposed to research the meaning of all the letters people put in their company names? With whom? There's hardly a central authority to establish the meaning of an LLC. Who defines it? You? Shouldn't you be obliged to give me a definition of those terms up front if you plan on holding me to it? Who else is going to?