Also, corporate managers who do wrong frequently manage to evade any personal responsibility behind a corporate shield. Not always, but it happens frequently.

State power is always behind this, in a fashion which is not readily apparent to many people, since it is regimes which grant corporations their charter, corporate personhood and noncontractual limited liability, and regimes which monopolize justice and force, by force.

Remove the state, and you have also removed the problem.

As for whether investors should be responsible for what is done with their money – well, it may lead to much greater oversight of corporate managers to prevent such liabilities from occurring in the first place, I would imagine.

The alternative, at present, is that it is the consumers, workers, competitors and would be competitors, and neighbors who take the risks and pay the price for corporate misdeeds in most cases. This is as a direct result of the merger between business and state; I propose to separate business and state, and make the business owners responsible for the actions of their business.

The current alternative usually means private profits at the same time that risks and costs are socialized (of course, the regime takes a cut of the profits too, and frequently a cut of the actual ownership as well).

Why not say that those who make the profits also bear the costs and risks?

Not really. Unless, as I said, you think that only losing the amount you decided to invest in a business that you don’t even manage–as against possibly losing everything you own–qualifies as a “privilege.” I don’t. I think that’s just and sensible. And I love the productive capacity it yields as well.

If a corporate manager make decisions that have physically harmed other *unwitting* people–proven by credible evidence–then he should repay his victims as is possible and/or serve time. Fortunately, such cases are rare.

You’re right that bureaucrats occasionally do go to jail for theft. But sovereign immunity from lawsuits applies only to government officials.

I addressed what privileges in 96.

While it’s true that corporate managers sometimes go to jail, bureaucrats sometimes do too. Both closely related forms of organization frequently shield the people involved from responsibility.

*What* privileges? Certifying a business with a certain structure for legal purposes counts as a state “privilege”? What are the political favors being done by that? That you can only lose the amount you personally chose to invest in a business that you don’t manage, as opposed to losing everything you own?

Corporate managers can and do go to jail for making bad decisions, you know. They aren’t shielded like government bureaucrats are.

“Raising capital through the creation of an artificial entity (the corporation) that is given “personhood” AND exemption from liability isn’t suspicious and/or immoral to you?”

So the mere fact of a corporate business raising money from people investing in it is apparently “immoral” to him. Yet when I pointed out that the LP is itself a corporate entity, he admitted that he had *voted* in favor of that. Did you personally vote in favor of the roads being government-owned? No, and neither did I. Regardless of his reasons, that’s obviously hypocritical.

Working within the constraints of an existing unfair system is not the same thing as proposing to perpetuate it.

We can debate the relative morality of actions ranging from joining the armed forces, a single mother accepting government assistance, a company getting a government grant, a political party receiving “matching” funds, etc, and so on…but in no case does our practical adjusting to the existing reality mean that we do not seek to change it.

Face it: socialists sell newspapers, and libertarians drive on government roads – and there is nothing inherently wrong about either.

Nor would there be, even if it were the ultimate righteous goal to abolish money or privatize all roads.

Seriously, this debate has gotten a bit far fetched. I would never propose ridding the world of corporatism in a debate. I was merely responding to Dustin @ 58!

IPR has gotten a bit slow the past few days…nothing to do but read Milnes “thoughts”!

This debate is just an amusement!

PEACE

You should be stoned!

Probably was.

A corporation isn’t “exempt from liability.” Limited liability means that the people who buy stock in the company can only lose the amount they invested in it, and not more than that.

Or they can reorganize the corporation, and lose nothing real.

Meanwhile, noncontracting parties – workers, consumers, competitors or would-be competitors, neighbors – can suffer very real damages with no remaining recourse (or a socialized recourse which in turn causes monetary damages to non-contracting parties).

A corporation is a form of a business that’s certified by the state as a legal entity in which management is separate from ownership.

Why should some force(d) state monopoly issue such privileges?

as the economy gets more complex and globalized, the implications of abolishing the corporate form become more astounding.

And the implications of failing to do so, doubly so.

What? YOU voted to make the LP an evil, perpetual, fictitious monster certified by the state? You should be stoned!

That’s sarcasm, btw. Though it’s hypocritical of you, based on what you’ve said here. Other corporations don’t file ballot access lawsuits, but they do get sued at times, often for absurd reasons (i.e., a cigarette company getting sued because a guy decided to smoke every day for 40 years and finally died of lung cancer). They also need legal standing for contract purposes. Nothing inherently wrong here, so long as the company doesn’t lobby for legal privileges not available to all.

as the economy gets more complex and globalized, the implications of abolishing the corporate form become more astounding.

when I was brainwashed by MNR, I too bought his “evils” of limited liability analysis. thankfully, I’ve deprogrammed myself!

I was on the LNC when we became incorporated sometime between ’93 & ’96. It was discovered that our national incorporation had expired sometime in the seventies, and nobody had thought to renew it.

The reasons for re-incorporating were two-fold, IIRC. One was that we needed some legal entity with which to file lawsuits against draconian ballot access laws. Second was to provide legal shelter to us, to limit our personal liability against frivolous lawsuits.

There was a lengthy debate. I took the pragmatic approach and supported it.

PEACE

Not if you understand the modern corporation, which you obviously don’t. A corporation isn’t “exempt from liability.” Limited liability means that the people who buy stock in the company can only lose the amount they invested in it, and not more than that. A corporation is a form of a business that’s certified by the state as a legal entity in which management is separate from ownership. The corporation has rights derived from the individual rights of its participants, just like any other organization does (i.e., the right to speak publicly).

By the way, the LP is also incorporated. The members are like the shareholders and the staff is like the management. You against that?

me_ yes but they only end up protecting them when it is politically beneficial ,meaning the tides and the voters are turning that way .

during our civil rights battle , like any battle foir freedom , it was good , courageous people who did the actual fighting for change. just like always . then after the idea caught on , maybe , the fed gov would protect those rights.

But you are correct, this is way down my list. I would never try to run on a platform of abolishing the corporation…it’s just not on anybody’s radar.

OTOH, I don’t want get caught in debates defending the corporation, either. How many times have you argued against government schools and had the response “we can’t turn schools over to corporations?”

This whole debate started with Dustin @ 58 and his straw man argument against libertarianism.

PEACE

I’m not convinced that’s the way to go in theory, but in practice the issue’s way, way down my priority list.

I do think they are from different sections, though I can’t offhand recall which mine came from.