Corporations

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Thu, Sep 9 2010 3:34 PM

rated by 0 users

C Le Master:

If anyone could tell me why all anarcho-capitalists seem to hate corporations

All though I can't speak for "all anarcho-capitalists, I dislike them because they are constructs of the state, and practitioners of cronyism par excellence.

what corporations do to grow that they couldn't do without a government

Exist

Lobby

Win no-bid contracts

Profiteering

why most people agree that they are "bad".

This stems from the misguided notion that corporations exist to "serve the common good", rather than increase the returns of their shareholders by any and all available means.  Also, the state allows companies to hijack its machinations in order to do so.  Without a state, some contractual agreements may exist which resemble incorporated firms, but since the "reigns of power" would not exist for them to utilize, it is unlikely they will grow to a size and scope which would cause them to be vilified.  Take for example, the positive image of "The Captains of Industry" from bygone eras.  Perhaps it was all clever marketing, but I think it also may have something to do with the fact that Corporations were not yet sophisticated enough in their political manipulations to be considered a threat by the average, non leftist poulace.

Reply

C Le Master replied on Thu, Sep 9 2010 3:45 PM

rated by 0 users

I don't see how profiteering isn't possible without government. Also, I don't see anything wrong with it. People may argue all capitalism and pretty much the whole word in regard to dog-eat-dog principles is unethical. Just because something is seen as morally wrong, doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to do it to profit.

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Thu, Sep 9 2010 4:04 PM

rated by 0 users

CLeM,

You are treating morality as truth.  That is a completely different topic.

Reply

C Le Master replied on Thu, Sep 9 2010 4:50 PM

rated by 0 users

Ok, just address this then: how could corporations not profiteer without a government. Corporations could take advantage of crises whether there was a government or not.

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Thu, Sep 9 2010 6:01 PM

rated by 0 users

"The term is also applied to businesses that play on political corruption to obtain government contracts."

- wiki

Reply

justinx0r replied on Thu, Sep 9 2010 6:13 PM

rated by 0 users

All anarcho-corporations don't hate corporations. Stephen Kinsella, for example, thinks that corporations would exist in a free market.

Reply

liberty student replied on Thu, Sep 9 2010 6:50 PM

rated by 0 users

C Le Master:

Corporations are just doing whatever they can to expand and profit. It is natural of the free market for companies to compete, grow, and attempt to profit the most by taking up as large of a chunk of the market as they can, as corporations do.

Corporations are not a product of the free market.  They are the result of a monopoly legal order which conveys legal personhood on particular actions of a collective.

C Le Master:

If anyone could tell me why all anarcho-capitalists seem to hate corporations

Not all, and maybe not even most.

C Le Master:

what corporations do to grow that they couldn't do without a government, and basically why most people agree that they are "bad".

Left anarchists hate corporations because they are hierarchical, and because many of them have issues accepting that the profit motive is fundamental to human action.  Corporations are able to get all sorts of benefits, both in the form of legal protection and tax privilege.  In a truly free market, capital might pool into firms, but they wouldnt be like state chartered corporations that we see today, because there would be no monopoly provider of legal personhood.

if you google the following kws

long huebert block carson corporation

in one search, you will probably turn up a debate between leftists Roderick Long and Kevin Carson, and Anarcho-Capitalists JH Huebert and Walter Block.

Reply

Jonathan M. F. Catalán replied on Thu, Sep 9 2010 7:00 PM

rated by 0 users

Wes Bertrand, a local libertarian from San Diego, addresses corporations in his most recent book, Complete Liberty: http://completeliberty.com/chapter4.php#80.  Just in case anybody is interested in reading that.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Fri, Sep 10 2010 8:47 AM

rated by 0 users

It was Frank van Dun* who convinced me that corporations wouldn't exist in a free-market (that is to say, anarcho-capitalist) society.  The reason for this is simple: universally limited liability cannot exist there.

A corporation can be defined as a for-profit business entity that enjoys limited liability.  This means the owners of the corporation cannot be held liable for more than what they label as its assets.  Why would they want this?  It's a form of protection.  Against what?  Against risk.

It's the concept of limited liability that gives rise to the concept of "artificial personhood" for corporations.  After all, for something to be owned, there must be an owner.  If the actual person who owns the assets doesn't want to be considered the owner anymore, yet still wants to control the assets, what can he do?  Well, in today's world, he can appeal to the monopoly over dispute resolution in his area (i.e. "his government") to let him create an "artificial person" -- a corporation -- to own the assets.  Of course, since the "personhood" of the corporation is just a legal fiction, he still retains control of the assets; the government just won't consider him to actually own them, and hence not be held personally liable for them.

With this understanding of limited liability, it's easy to see how it would interfere with the provision of restitutive justice in a free-market society.  If one or more people in a manufacturing corporation decided to discharge waste products into a supply of drinking water, which polluted it and lead to severe illness for those who drank from it, those people would not be held directly responsible for it.  Only "the corporation as a whole" would be.  Yet a corporation, being a legal fiction, cannot actually do anything.  How then can it be held responsible?  Simply by fiat of the original "artificial person", the government.

Contractual arrangements can provide limitations of liability in a free-market society, but only for the parties involved.  Third parties, by definition, are exempt.  Hence, in cases where third parties have been damaged, the business(es) in question -- more accurately, the owner(s) of the business(es) -- would have full liability.

* I can provide a link to his relevant essay, if you'd like.