What if there were no more corporations?

[Infohawk]

In case some of you don't know, corporations are fictional individuals created by the state. In the US, corporations were introduced to encourage investing in the 19th century. Before that, you had partnerships. The basic purpose of a corporation is to limit liability.

Isn't this just state intervention in the markets? Shouldn't libertarians be outraged? From a free-market perspective, isn't this just distorting things?

If we want economic freedom, we need to hold people accoutnable for their actions. This involves making people responsible for their decisions, which means not limiting liability. If you enter into a contract, and can't pay it, I think it is distorting trade to allow one party to say, "hey-- this was just an imaginary creature you were bargaining with. I'm going home. Tough luck." Let's hold people responsible for their actions. I think this would promote better economic decision-making.

And in any case, I want to hear from the small-government and especially libertarians and economic anarchists why we should tolerate the corporate form given they are trying to rid government from the markets genreally.

PS I imagine some people won't understand that I am not arguing against market economies here. I am for free markets.

 

[Steeplerot]

From what I understand the founding fathers thought corporations were very wrong since they had to firsthand witnessed the corruption and manipulation and human rights abuses of the east india tea company,

From what I understand the constitution used to say no corporate entitys except for temporary ones to work on large public projects (like the erie canal) that is until the reconstruction after civil war, and look at the mess since, people screwing with stock market, rail barons,
,microsoft, wal mart, that big oil mess in the teens last century? (what was that companys name for 0$ prize that the govt had to shut down for monopolizing) enron, haliburton, and all the corruption lobbyists cause in our democracy (GOP and Dems!).... corporations need to go bye bye.

 

[Bowfinger]

I think that's an interesting idea. I don't want to hijack your thread, but I'd like to offer a related suggestion. What if we amended the Constitution to decree that corporations, partnerships, and other organizations are NOT legally individuals, and are specifically NOT granted the indivudal rights enumerated in the Constitution. The idea is to put "people back in "We, the People", and to help build a wall between businesses and our government. What's the downside?

 

[MadRat]

I wouldn't say bye-bye, but they do need accountability. The current system encourages cavalier and reckless short-term behaviors.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I think that's an interesting idea. I don't want to hijack your thread, but I'd like to offer a related suggestion. What if we amended the Constitution to decree that corporations, partnerships, and other organizations are NOT legally individuals, and are specifically NOT granted the indivudal rights enumerated in the Constitution. The idea is to put "people back in "We, the People", and to help build a wall between businesses and our government. What's the downside?

Yup. I think it's clear that corps should not have constitutional rights like free speech. It would help out are democracy. Their members have free speech and can speak on their behalf if they want to. Of course, this wouldn't even be a problem if corporations were illegal. It is quite absurd that the government allowed the creation of fictional characters and embued them with the rights of human beings.

 

[PrinceofWands]

The problem isn't that they exist, it's that they're treated as entities under the 14th amendment. Just remove that little loophile and things would naturally work themselves out eventually.

 

[zendari]

Corporations are a necessity in maintaining our country's level of productivity. How would computers as we know them exist without Intel, Dell, and Microsoft? Such efficiency can't be accomplished with only small businesses.

I do think, however, corporate executives need to be watched more carefully by the SEC and other organizations, and fraud criteria/detection strengthened.

 

[Riprorin]

I work for a fortune 200 company. It didn't start out as a large corporation. It was started by a guy who was a hobbyist who had an idea on how to bring his hobby to the masses. His idea worked and his fledgling company grew and prospered.

My father worked for a large coroporation and it afforded our family a decent standard of living and the large corporation I work for is providing the same for my family.

Again, it seems to seem boil down to envy. Leftists seem to hate anyone who is more successful than they are.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: zendari
Corporations are a necessity in maintaining our country's level of productivity. How would computers as we know them exist without Intel, Dell, and Microsoft? Such efficiency can't be accomplished with only small businesses.

You could have large partnerships. It just means that nobody has limited liability. I doubt the apple founders would have been stopped if they were forced to form a partnership.

I do think, however, corporate executives need to be watched more carefully by the SEC and other organizations, and fraud criteria/detection strengthened.

I don't. Let investors cover their own asses.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: zendari
Corporations are a necessity in maintaining our country's level of productivity. How would computers as we know them exist without Intel, Dell, and Microsoft? Such efficiency can't be accomplished with only small businesses.

I do think, however, corporate executives need to be watched more carefully by the SEC and other organizations, and fraud criteria/detection strengthened.

Too bad this administration shot down a chance to enable the SEC to be more of an enforcer.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

You are the first poster who is too ignorant to understand that I'm not advocating communism or some other system that limits individual profit. I even put a bold statement making my intentions clear, but you get these black and white thinking dimwits who immediately start saluting the flag when the hear the word "corporation".

 

[TerribleTerryTate]

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Riprorin

You are the first poster who is too ignorant to understand that I'm not advocating communism or some other system that limits individual profit. I even put a bold statement making my intentions clear, but you get these black and white thinking dimwits who immediately start saluting the flag when the hear the word "corporation".

Topic Title: What if there were no more corporations?
Topic Summary: For you small government fans, keep in mind corporations are a creation of the state

Corporations are a creation of the state???? And you are calling me ignorant?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Corporations are a creation of the state???? And you are calling me ignorant?

Yes and yes. Corporations ARE a creation of the state. It's not some sort of liberal statement; it's the legal reality.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Corporations are a creation of the state???? And you are calling me ignorant?

Yes and yes. Corporations ARE a creation of the state. It's not some sort of liberal statement; it's the legal reality.

Explain what you mean by "a creation of the state".

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Corporations are a creation of the state???? And you are calling me ignorant?

Yes and yes. Corporations ARE a creation of the state. It's not some sort of liberal statement; it's the legal reality.

Explain what you mean by "a creation of the state".

I mean the various states of the union create the form called "corporation". Without the state, there would be no corporations. You didn't really read my first post huh? Probably just read teh title and pasted.

 

[sbacpo]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
In case some of you don't know, corporations are fictional individuals created by the state. In the US, corporations were introduced to encourage investing in the 19th century. Before that, you had partnerships. The basic purpose of a corporation is to limit liability.

Isn't this just state intervention in the markets? Shouldn't libertarians be outraged? From a free-market perspective, isn't this just distorting things?

If we want economic freedom, we need to hold people accoutnable for their actions. This involves making people responsible for their decisions, which means not limiting liability. If you enter into a contract, and can't pay it, I think it is distorting trade to allow one party to say, "hey-- this was just an imaginary creature you were bargaining with. I'm going home. Tough luck." Let's hold people responsible for their actions. I think this would promote better economic decision-making.

And in any case, I want to hear from the small-government and especially libertarians and economic anarchists why we should tolerate the corporate form given they are trying to rid government from the markets genreally.

PS I imagine some people won't understand that I am not arguing against market economies here. I am for free markets.

So, are you in favor of removing the liability protection a corporation provides for all stock holders? The elimination of corporations would do exactly that, effectively dissolving the common stock market. Is that what you are advocating?

BTW your first paragraph is false. Corporations have been around a lot longer than that. And this statement " I think it is distorting trade to allow one party to say, "hey-- this was just an imaginary creature you were bargaining with. I'm going home. Tough luck." is just utter nonsense.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Corporations are a creation of the state???? And you are calling me ignorant?

Yes and yes. Corporations ARE a creation of the state. It's not some sort of liberal statement; it's the legal reality.

Explain what you mean by "a creation of the state".

I mean the various states of the union create the form called "corporation". Without the state, there would be no corporations. You didn't really read my first post huh? Probably just read teh title and pasted.

Ah, I think I get where you're coming from. You've been reading Charles Derber.

Corporation Nation: How Corporations Are Taking over Our Lives and What We Can Do about It

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Ah, I think I get where you're coming from. You've been reading Charles Derber.

Umm... no. Not everything is black and white. Not everyone fits into a doctrine like you do. Anyway, you are useless and I'm not responding to any more of your posts in this thread.

If any true free-market fans and libertarians are here, I'm waiting.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Ah, I think I get where you're coming from. You've been reading Charles Derber.

Umm... no. Not everything is black and white. Not everyone fits into a doctrine like you do. Anyway, you are useless and I'm not responding to any more of your posts in this thread.

If any true free-market fans and libertarians are here, I'm waiting.

Don't worry. I'm gone. I don't find bashing successful large corporation interesting.

The one I work for has paid/treated me well.

Have fun.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Ah, I think I get where you're coming from. You've been reading Charles Derber.

Umm... no. Not everything is black and white. Not everyone fits into a doctrine like you do. Anyway, you are useless and I'm not responding to any more of your posts in this thread.

If any true free-market fans and libertarians are here, I'm waiting.

Don't worry. I'm gone. I don't find bashing successful large corporation interesting.

The one I work for has paid/treated me well.

Have fun.

Don't the let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: zendari
Corporations are a necessity in maintaining our country's level of productivity. How would computers as we know them exist without Intel, Dell, and Microsoft? Such efficiency can't be accomplished with only small businesses.

You could have large partnerships. It just means that nobody has limited liability. I doubt the apple founders would have been stopped if they were forced to form a partnership.

But apple would have never formed. The entire reason that these organizations are able to acquire such capital is due to the limited liability. How do you set up a "large partnership" of thousands, if not millions, of investors? Due to the liability, every investor is going to have to want a say in how the company is run to cover his own ass.

With a corporation, I don't need to bother with all that, only their financial statements and growth potential and such, and I don't have to worry about losing anything more than the investment.

The founding fathers thought corportations were evil? Get rid of corporations, and we'd live in founding father times and with founding father technology.

I do think, however, corporate executives need to be watched more carefully by the SEC and other organizations, and fraud criteria/detection strengthened.

I don't. Let investors cover their own asses.


Executive fraud hurts more than the investors. Think outside the box a bit, a case like Enron is bad also because it hurts employees and lowers consumer confidence in corporations.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: zendari

Like most government intervention into the markets, there are positives, but you have to look at the larger picture. So even rent control benefits certain people. So does creating work with public programs. So does creating liability shelters (corporations). The problem is for every apple there are ten businesses where wealth is lost because one party is a corporate form and can take what are essentialy government-allowed risks. Well, I say if you want to take risk you should have what it takes to back it up.

Also, I'm not so sure apple could not have come about. You can have giant partnerships. All you would need to do is create contractual relationships (same as shares) between the parties explaining whta their shares means and such. The only difference is there would be no limited liability. If you invest in a venture and it is so pathetic it cannot pay what it is obligated to pay (think of the other person on the transaction), you shouldn't have made the investment.

Executive fraud hurts more than the investors.

Again, if someone is a real fan of free markets they let the investors and employees take the risk. Unfettered capitalism is a stressful environment, no doubt. By intervening with enron and co at the taxpayer's expense you are penalizing those that were economically wise enough not to invest in enron or have their whole retirement with them.

Think outside the box a bit, a case like Enron is bad also because it hurts employees and lowers consumer confidence in corporations.

Hurts employees? Sure it does. So does a lot of economic activity. And lowering consumer confidence in corproations is not a concern for me since they are of dubious value.

 

[judasmachine]

Watch it, learn it, love it

 

[Riprorin]

PS I imagine some people won't understand that I am not arguing against market economies here. I am for free markets.

So are you in favor of CAFTA?