Defending Corporations

[Skooma Addict]

I think since most people here dislike corporations, it would be good to defend them. Even though todays corporations do receive privileged benefits from the State, the corporation as an entity does not except to a relatively small extent. People that think the corporation is given special privileges need to show two things. First, that it is corporations and only corporations who receive the relevant "privilege." Second, that these features cannot be acquired by a contractual agreement.

1. First is what the critics call entity status. Corporations are given an unfair advantage in that they can sue and be sued as a unit. It can also hold a legal title to property despite changes in the ranks of its shareholders.

However, this argument fails since entity status is an optional feature to all unincorporated businesses, including partnerships, limited partnerships, and trusts. Being a legal entity is not a feature unique to corporations. Also, entity status for corporations is used for convenience. They can use courts without writing the name of every shareholder into their papers. Even if this were considered a privilege, it is neutralized by the fact that being sued under a single name is not advantageous to the corporation. Rather, it is a measure of fairness to their opponents.

2. Second is the complaint of perpetual duration. This is pretty self explanatory.

This argument does not work since all that perpetual duration means is that the articles of incorporation don't need to be renewed. This however certainly doesn't mean the corporation will continue in business forever.

Also, this is not an advantage for corporations since partners can make their enterprise immortal by adopting a continuity agreement specifying that the firm won't be liquidated when one of the partners dies or withdraws.

3. Finally, we come to the most controversial issue. Limited liability. Again, everyone already knows the argument so there is no point in reiterating.

Limited liability is actually an implied contract between corporate owners and their creditors. To quote Berle: "A clause could be put in every contract by which the apposite party (creditor) limited his right of recovery to the common fund: the incorporation act may fairly be construed as legislating into all corporate contracts an implied cause and effect."

Also, limited liability does not necessarily discriminate against creditors to the benefit of shareholders. Creditors cannot be compelled to accept a limited liability arrangement. In fact, they often insist that one or more shareholders become personal sureties for the debt. But most importantly comes limited liability in respect to torts. It seems to many that limited liability for torts is a government privilege which shields shareholders from liability. While a semi-legitimate argument against corporations, it isn't as strong as people claim. It certainly does not prove that such a privilege is what allows corporations to exist.

The fact is that the rules of tort liability originated centuries ago when English courts established the respondeat superior. Let the master be answerable for the acts of his servant. This principle is based on the premise that the servant commits the tort while engaged in some activity on behalf of his master, and that servant is personally hired, instructed, and supervised by the master. This meant the courts gave the victim someone solvent to sue for damages.

Liability should only apply to those shareholders who play an active role in managing an enterprise or in selecting and supervising its employees. The liability for inactive shareholders should be the same as that of limited partners. That is, limited to the amount invested. The law should be that whoever controls the business, regardless of its legal form, should be personally liable. So in partnerships, liability falls on the general partners. In corporations, it falls on the officers (owner-investors or hired managers). This would lead to more careful supervision of personnel.

But anyways, partnerships can limit liability by forming a close corporation. They can then discard nearly every other corporate feature. So again, this is not a feature unique to large corporations.

The most reasonable belief is that corporations will merely change their form with the adaptation of a free market. They will not disappear.

For more info, see In Defense of the Corporation By Robert Hessen, and The Modern Corporation and Private Property by Adolf Berle. If I were not lazy, I would have cited some of my paragraphs as they are very similar to the ones in those two books I cited. However, I am lazy. Finally, I am not familiar with any recent changes in corporate law. So it is possible that one of my points could be "obsolete." But I am pretty sure that is not the case. I could be wrong though. I have not even mentioned the economic advantages for a corporation. Maybe that discussion will come later.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I think you should watch the film, The Corporation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoQqH3yHd2E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPjBd786GZw&feature=related

You find the other 21 parts at You Tube.

[Skooma Addict]

I watched the first two parts and I thought it was interesting and entertaining. It certainly wasn't boring. I will watch the rest as I have nothing better to do.

[Dean]

Corporations are nothing more than the prevalent structure taken on by accumulated capital in an advanced competitive market. I see no reason why forcible extraction of property, something that has occurred for more than 2 centuries of competitive markets, would not perpetuate the same (or a similar) paradigm of privilege and tactical use of economic resources as we have seen for this period.

As long as security is an unequal paradigm (that is, you pay for what you get), those who have less capital will have less resources to defend their capital. I haven't seen any reasonable solution to this problem that includes a free market system. I also don't expect to see one, since it is such a basic feature of capital.

[Skooma Addict]

Corporations are nothing more than the prevalent structure taken on by accumulated capital in an advanced competitive market. I see no reason why forcible extraction of property, something that has occurred for more than 2 centuries of competitive markets, would not perpetuate the same (or a similar) paradigm of privilege and tactical use of economic resources as we have seen for this period.

As long as security is an unequal paradigm (that is, you pay for what you get), those who have less capital will have less resources to defend their capital. I haven't seen any reasonable solution to this problem that includes a free market system. I also don't expect to see one, since it is such a basic feature of capital.

Are you saying that corporations would act exactly as they do now under a free market? If so, I disagree.

Just want to make sure I understand your point first before I respond.

[RGacky3]

There is a major difference between limited liability partnerships and large corporations, even small limited liability corporations and large corporations. In partnerships, and small corporations, the owners ARE the manegers, in these large corporations many times the manegers are heaviliy invested in many corporations and even on the boards of many corporations.

Also as far as the old and tried "its gonna be different with a free market" agument, let it go. A market system with enforced private property will lead to centralization of wealth and thus power, and with the centralization of power will come more centralization of wealth, there never was and never will be a free market, because markets are run by the wealthy.

You guys yell competition, but guess waht people WIN competitions, ask europe during the age of imperiralism.

[Skooma Addict]

There is a major difference between limited liability partnerships and large corporations, even small limited liability corporations and large corporations. In partnerships, and small corporations, the owners ARE the manegers, in these large corporations many times the mangers are heavily invested in many corporations and even on the boards of many corporations. Limited liability works the same for each types of organization. Limited liability for partnerships allows them to limit their tort liability. In cases such as this, the burden of accidents and injuries is more heavily held by the victims than in the case with corporations. As corporations usually have substantial liability insurance or are in possession of sizable assets.


Also as far as the old and tried "its gonna be different with a free market" agument, let it go. A market system with enforced private property will lead to centralization of wealth and thus power, and with the centralization of power will come more centralization of wealth, there never was and never will be a free market, because markets are run by the wealthy.As for the old and tired, "its gunna be different with real socialism" argument, let it go.

As for the rest of this quote, I won't take your word for it.

[Havet]

I think you should read this (http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11/10/roderick-long/corporations-versus-the-market-or-whip-conflation-now/) by Roderick Long. Just food for thought.

Probably this (http://www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/feat7.pdf) too as well.

[Skooma Addict]

I think you should read this (http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11/10/roderick-long/corporations-versus-the-market-or-whip-conflation-now/) by Roderick Long. Just food for thought.

Probably this (http://www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/feat7.pdf) too as well.

I read the first piece before but not the second. The first has some stuff that my argument is not concerned with, such as tax breaks for corporations. However, at points where he makes claims relevant to my argument, I don't think they hold too well. I will read the second link though.

[RGacky3]

Limited liability works the same for each types of organization. Limited liability for partnerships allows them to limit their tort liability. In cases such as this, the burden of accidents and injuries is more heavily held by the victims than in the case with corporations. As corporations usually have substantial liability insurance or are in possession of sizable assets.


You did'nt respond to my point, those maneging smaller partnerships are actually heavily staked in their own company, its not the case with larger corporations generally.


As for the old and tired, "its gunna be different with real socialism" argument, let it go.

As for the rest of this quote, I won't take your word for it.

well, its been proven empirically. As for the rest of my quote, you don't have to, do you deny people WIN competitions? And that if you have a lot its easier to get more?

[Skooma Addict]

You did'nt respond to my point, those maneging smaller partnerships are actually heavily staked in their own company, its not the case with larger corporations generally.So what is this point intended to prove?


well, its been proven empirically. As for the rest of my quote, you don't have to, do you deny people WIN competitions? And that if you have a lot its easier to get more?
What has been proven empirically? That attempts at achieving socialism don't end well?

As for your last two questions, it depends on the context. Are you trying to use these points as a foundation for a natural monopolies argument?

[RGacky3]

So what is this point intended to prove?

One of the problems with corporations is that its the incentive of the manegers to run the corporation in a way where it will benefit THEM and not neccesarily the owners.


What has been proven empirically? That attempts at achieving socialism don't end well?


Anarchist Spain, Hungarian revolt, Kibbutz, Zapatista Mexico, Free Ukraine, early American Christian communities, Argentine factory takeoves and so on and so forth.

Just to be clear, socialism, means democratic control of the economy, workers control the workplace, if its not that, its not socialism.


As for your last two questions, it depends on the context. Are you trying to use these points as a foundation for a natural monopolies argument?

Be it natural monopolies or whatever, what I'm saying is a class system comes out of a market system.

[Skooma Addict]

One of the problems with corporations is that its the incentive of the manegers to run the corporation in a way where it will benefit THEM and not neccesarily the owners.

You don't need to have your funds personally invested in the company in order to have an interest in running it well. The owners have ways to ensure that the company runs well.



Anarchist Spain, Hungarian revolt, Kibbutz, Zapatista Mexico, Free Ukraine, early American Christian communities, Argentine factory takeoves and so on and so forth.

Just to be clear, socialism, means democratic control of the economy, workers control the workplace, if its not that, its not socialism.

After reading Caplans piece on Spain I can't really see how you would cite that as an example. I have never heard of anything else you mentioned besides the factory takeovers.

That definition of socialism works well enough, but my point was that attempts at achieving it don't end well.


Be it natural monopolies or whatever, what I'm saying is a class system comes out of a market system.

There would be classes in a socialist state. I don't see anything wrong with classes per se.

[Argument]

People that think the corporation is given special privileges need to show two things. First, that it is corporations and only corporations who receive the relevant "privilege."Why is this important?

[Skooma Addict]

Why is this important?

It is important if you are going to claim that the corporation is given privileges that other forms of organization are not given and then conclude that corporations would not exist in a free market.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Or this book:

The Conservative Nanny State (http://www.conservativenannystate.org/)

[Dean]

Are you saying that corporations would act exactly as they do now under a free market? If so, I disagree.

Just want to make sure I understand your point first before I respond.
Well, you can't expect them to act against their interests in any market. If the same structures continue to exist, they will finds means to achieve their goals - acquisition of control over the market, accumulation of wealth.

[Skooma Addict]

Well, you can't expect them to act against their interests in any market. If the same structures continue to exist, they will finds means to achieve their goals - acquisition of control over the market, accumulation of wealth.

Well the same "structures" won't exist.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Very interesting OP. I agree with most of it. A couple of points though.


2. Second is the complaint of perpetual duration. This is pretty self explanatory.

This argument does not work since all that perpetual duration means is that the articles of incorporation don't need to be renewed. This however certainly doesn't mean the corporation will continue in business forever.

Also, this is not an advantage for corporations since partners can make their enterprise immortal by adopting a continuity agreement specifying that the firm won't be liquidated when one of the partners dies or withdraws.
What do you think about the company's potential for perpetual duration in relation to the ownership of property? A company can theoretically hold property forever, even though its shareholders may be replaced countless times. For individuals, it has become very difficult to tie up land for more than a few generations. Is this not an advantage?


3. Finally, we come to the most controversial issue. Limited liability. Again, everyone already knows the argument so there is no point in reiterating.

Limited liability is actually an implied contract between corporate owners and their creditors. To quote Berle: "A clause could be put in every contract by which the apposite party (creditor) limited his right of recovery to the common fund: the incorporation act may fairly be construed as legislating into all corporate contracts an implied cause and effect."
What about the costs of negotiating such clauses? If there is a cost associated with negotiating such clauses, does the implication by law of these clauses into corporate contracts (whereas they have to be manually negotiated by individuals) not benefit corporations?

[Dean]

Well the same "structures" won't exist.

Why? The state has shifted and changed its character for centuries - the Rothchild family is just one example of the continued hegemony of privilege across markedly different state structures.

[Skooma Addict]

What do you think about the company's potential for perpetual duration in relation to the ownership of property? A company can theoretically hold property forever, even though its shareholders may be replaced countless times. For individuals, it has become very difficult to tie up land for more than a few generations. Is this not an advantage?


Well any company can theoretically hold property forever. But true, with corporations this can happen even if shareholders are replaced. However, I still view this as contractual and so I see no problem with it. Corporations do have advantages and disadvantages over smaller firms (coordination problems can occur, but a hierarchical structure can help reduce the degree). The point is not whether or not corporations have advantages, but what advantags they would retain in the absence of the state.

And in the real world, corporations don't hold onto property forever. The advantage seems larger theoretically than in the actual world. And again, other forms of organization may adopt perpetual duration as well.

Let me know if I missunderstood the point of what you were trying to say.


What about the costs of negotiating such clauses? If there is a cost associated with negotiating such clauses, does the implication by law of these clauses into corporate contracts (whereas they have to be manually negotiated by individuals) not benefit corporations?

Yea, that seems like a fair point. However, if I remember correctly, the point I think Berle was making is that such clauses are not required. It was merely to prove that limited liability (to a degree) is contractual.

And again, there are already partnerships who do this do the detriment of consumers. Although I do agree that you make a fair point. Do you disagree with this though?

"Liability should only apply to those shareholders who play an active role in managing an enterprise or in selecting and supervising its employees. The liability for inactive shareholders should be the same as that of limited partners. That is, limited to the amount invested. The law should be that whoever controls the business, regardless of its legal form, should be personally liable. So in partnerships, liability falls on the general partners. In corporations, it falls on the officers (owner-investors or hired managers). This would lead to more careful supervision of personnel."

Doesn't this seem like it would remove much of the problem?

[RGacky3]

You don't need to have your funds personally invested in the company in order to have an interest in running it well. The owners have ways to ensure that the company runs well.

THe owners are the stock holders, and unless you are a major stockholder, you have no way of ensuring the company runs well, you have no say over how the company is run, let me know if there is a way, what it is.

My point is there is a difference between manegers that own the company, and manegers that run the company but don't nessesarily own it.


After reading Caplans piece on Spain I can't really see how you would cite that as an example. I have never heard of anything else you mentioned besides the factory takeovers.

That definition of socialism works well enough, but my point was that attempts at achieving it don't end well.

These ones did, about Spain, the fact that there were problems does'nt prove that its better than a market system. All of these examples did'nt degenerate into totalitarianism or any of the other predictions of the right.


There would be classes in a socialist state. I don't see anything wrong with classes per se.

In a socialist society (where the economy is run democratically) I don't see how there would be actual classes.

[Skooma Addict]

THe owners are the stock holders, and unless you are a major stockholder, you have no way of ensuring the company runs well, you have no say over how the company is run, let me know if there is a way, what it is.

My point is there is a difference between manegers that own the company, and manegers that run the company but don't nessesarily own it.

Well that depends on your rights as a shareholder, which can differ between corporations. You can have a small share and still be allowed to participate in votes. There will be some shareholders who don't participate in such events, but since this is all contractual, I am not against it. By the way, if you are forced between keeping the things the way they are now or adopting the reforms I propose, you should agree with me. The big time managers and owners are held fully liable, while the "little guy" is protected through limited liability. To me it seems like you would favor this.


These ones did, about Spain, the fact that there were problems does'nt prove that its better than a market system. All of these examples did'nt degenerate into totalitarianism or any of the other predictions of the right.

I think Spain ended pretty darn badly based on reading Caplan. As for the other examples, I am skeptical but I am not really qualified have a debate about them as I am not familiar with them.


In a socialist society (where the economy is run democratically) I don't see how there would be actual classes.

Maybe not in an anarcho-communits society, but certainly in a socialist state there are classes.

[RGacky3]

Well that depends on your rights as a shareholder, which can differ between corporations. You can have a small share and still be allowed to participate in votes. There will be some shareholders who don't participate in such events, but since this is all contractual, I am not against it. By the way, if you are forced between keeping the things the way they are now or adopting the reforms I propose, you should agree with me. The big time managers and owners are held fully liable, while the "little guy" is protected through limited liability. To me it seems like you would favor this.


Stockholders have a yes or no vote for the board, who is notimated by the exectutives which is chosen by the board, so its essencially not at all democratic. Most public corporations work that way.

The big time managers are NOT liable perse the company is, the way it works, is that those managers are generally invested elsewhere and also have interests elsewhere, so if the company goes down they are fine, but the stockholders just lost value.


I think Spain ended pretty darn badly based on reading Caplan. As for the other examples, I am skeptical but I am not really qualified have a debate about them as I am not familiar with them.


I suggest reading other accounts about spain, scholarly ones, and actual accounts. Spain ended badly because of Franco :P. But I strongly sugget reading about the Spanish revolution from scholarly (non political) sources, and also political sources, and wittness accounts.


Maybe not in an anarcho-communits society, but certainly in a socialist state there are classes.

Well socialist "states" that are not a functioning democracy are not socialist by definition.

[Turinbaar]

RGacky3: "socialism, means democratic control of the economy, workers control the workplace, if its not that, its not socialism"

Skooma Addict: "That definition of socialism works well enough"

This concession of yours brings with it the reality that capitalism is characteristically undemocratic in the workplace, but regardless, would you object to this definition of socialism coming about in actuality? You've made you're views on violent revolution, statism and their implications clear, and I largely agree, but would you support a workers movement that was democratic from the beginning in it's nature, actions and interests? Or are you the sort of rightist who believes in less democracy and more capitalism?

[Skooma Addict]

Skooma Addict: "That definition of socialism works well enough"

This concession of yours brings with it the reality that capitalism is characteristically undemocratic in the workplace, but regardless, would you object to this definition of socialism coming about in actuality? You've made you're views on violent revolution, statism and their implications clear, and I largely agree, but would you support a workers movement that was democratic from the beginning in it's nature, actions and interests? Or are you the sort of rightist who believes in less democracy and more capitalism?

If I am understanding you correctly, then no, I do not object to that. However, I don't really care if the worker movement is democratic in nature as much as I care about whether it is voluntary in nature. What would the workers movement goals be? If it were to establish some sort of workers commune, then I have no problem. If it is to take over a previously established workplace run by workers who adhere to private property and capitalism, that is where I have a problem.

[Turinbaar]

If I am understanding you correctly, then no, I do not object to that. However, I don't really care if the worker movement is democratic in nature as much as I care about whether it is voluntary in nature. What would the workers movement goals be? If it were to establish some sort of workers commune, then I have no problem. If it is to take over a previously established workplace run by workers who adhere to private property and capitalism, that is where I have a problem.

If the worker's demanded that the governing boards of their industry were to open at least half of their seats to representatives of equal standing, nominated and elected by the workers, and that others submit themselves to the review of the workers, then this would bring a form of republicanism into the private market called the workers co-operative. It could have been possible too when Obama first came into office. George Bush had left him with a semi-nationalized banking system (rather red wouldn't you say?), whose industry heads Obama could have fired and tried for criminal negligence and corruption. He could then have called for the above mentioned elections, and a campaign of targeted loans on only those industries who conformed. Once the banking co-op had repaid the bail-outs, and gained full independence from the state as the corporate banks did not too long ago, they could be allowed to continue the policy or not. There would be no need for special laws or new government offices, the state could have simply allowed any stubborn corporations to die and be replaced by worker's republics. Instead Obama is allowing corporations to leach off of the state, which is a classic manifestation of capitalism.

[Skooma Addict]

If the worker's demanded that the governing boards of their industry were to open at least half of their seats to representatives of equal standing, nominated and elected by the workers, and that others submit themselves to the review of the workers, then this would bring a form of republicanism into the private market called the workers co-operative. It could have been too when Obama first came into office. George Bush had left him with a semi-nationalized banking system (rather red wouldn't you say?), whose industry heads Obama could have fired and tried for criminal negligence and corruption. He could then have called for the above mentioned elections, and a campaign of targeted loans on only those industries who conformed. Once the banking co-op had repaid the bail-outs, and gained full independence from the state as the corporate banks did not too long ago, they could be allowed to continue the policy or not. There would be no need for special laws or new government offices, the state could have simply allowed any stubborn corporations to die and be replaced by worker's republics. Instead Obama is allowing corporations to leach off of the state, which is a classic manifestation of capitalism.

Well I wouldn't really support that method of achieving worker coops on a large scale, and for me whether or not that would be acceptable would depend on the corporation. There are some corporations where I would support handing power to the workers if the benefits that the state previously gave the corporation were cut off as well. I would rather have a worker coop that I am not subsidizing than a corporation that I am subsidizing.

I could never support that on any kind of large scale however as it would open the door for further government intervention and possibly dismantle legitimate corporations.

But to your point, I would support what you are proposing whenever we are looking at a corporation which receives excessive amounts of benefits from the state. Then given the two alternates, I would support the worker coop.

[Turinbaar]

Well I wouldn't really support that method of achieving worker coops on a large scale, and for me whether or not that would be acceptable would depend on the corporation. There are some corporations where I would support handing power to the workers if the benefits that the state previously gave the corporation were cut off as well. I would rather have a worker coop that I am not subsidizing than a corporation that I am subsidizing.

I could never support that on any kind of large scale however as it would open the door for further government intervention and possibly dismantle legitimate corporations.

But to your point, I would support what you are proposing whenever we are looking at a corporation which receives excessive amounts of benefits from the state. Then given the two alternates, I would support the worker coop.


I work in a Co-op called REI that's been around since 1938. Its never been in debt, because it avoids the stock market and sells shares directly, and has never needed any help from the state. During the crisis in 08, REI was relatively unaffected compared to capitalist equivalents. It generates profits, but allocates the funds according to the democratic will of the workers. I believe this should be the model of the free market in america, as it is much less prone to contradiction than capitalism.

The thing about my proposal is that by taking an already state-own banking system, and democratizing its clearly degraded practices, the state can establish a stable body of banking that can become independent and give loan incentives to the democratically minded industries and deny it to specifically those corporations who leach off of the state already, in a climate of chaos created by the those same private property owning classes, as a clear message to adapt or be left out in the struggle to compete. No one would be forcing the corporations with laws and regulations to change there ways. They can hold on to the boom and bust cycle of the capitalist model and the risks of the stock market all they want (and I agree without state subsidy), and if capitalism is such a vindicated system this late after the demise of soviet communism, then it should by it's own logic emerge unscathed without bail-outs. If these corporations did continue failing as they did before they began leaching off the state, then their demise would be shortly forgotten as their replacements rose to prominence and prosperity.

[Skooma Addict]

I work in a Co-op called REI that's been around since 1938. Its never been in debt, because it avoids the stock market and sells shares directly, and has never needed any help from the state. During the crisis in 08, REI was relatively unaffected compared to capitalist equivalents. It generates profits, but allocates the funds according to the democratic will of the workers. I believe this should be the model of the free market in america, as it is much less prone to contradiction than capitalism.

Interesting. I actually have to do a project on worker Coops regarding their advantages and disadvantages. Out of curiosity, which product/service does your coop provide?

I am not concerned at all really with what will be the dominant type of firm in a free market. I do think worker coops would exist as I do believe they can have advantages over "hierarchical firms." But I don't think they would be dominant in a free market. This is all speculation though.

[Turinbaar]

Interesting. I actually have to do a project on worker Coops regarding their advantages and disadvantages. Out of curiosity, which product/service does your coop provide?

I am not concerned at all really with what will be the dominant type of firm in a free market. I do think worker coops would exist as I do believe they can have advantages over "hierarchical firms." But I don't think they would be dominant in a free market. This is all speculation though.

REI does retail in camping and bikes, and also provides what it calls an "outdoor school" for members to go on nature trips of all sorts. It's based on the west coast, so it has a strong customer following among green and hippie types. Member's get a cumulative annual dividend credit of 10%, and access to exclusive sales. Employee's get access to "leadership training" to apply for management and higher level positions, as well as healthcare and further discounts and perks.

The key advantage to the co-op system is the democratic element in the choosing of leaders. Unlike the corporate elite, who buy their way into the top, and are accountable only to their shareholders, the board of a co-op is directly accountable to the voting workforce. Another helpful strengthening of the co-operative's durability is the direct sale of shares, and the avoiding of the stock market, where corporation can be inflated or destroyed more or less at the whim of a few billionaires or the state. Membership is for life, and sold individually, so no single shareholder can dominate the company. The only conceivable way I can see REI failing in the market is if all of the spandex warriors, hippies and yuppy green types in San Francisco, Berkeley and Seattle suddenly disappeared into thin air.

[RGacky3]

However, I don't really care if the worker movement is democratic in nature as much as I care about whether it is voluntary in nature. What would the workers movement goals be? If it were to establish some sort of workers commune, then I have no problem. If it is to take over a previously established workplace run by workers who adhere to private property and capitalism, that is where I have a problem.

I love the idea that somehow there would be workers that would adhere to private property and Capitalism without outside enforcement, its rediculous, its like if peasents would still give up most of their crops to nobles even though the nobles had no power over them.

[Skooma Addict]

I love the idea that somehow there would be workers that would adhere to private property and Capitalism without outside enforcement, its rediculous, its like if peasents would still give up most of their crops to nobles even though the nobles had no power over them.

It isn't like that at all, as the capitalist/worker relationship is mutually beneficial.

But as I have been saying before, you can have your socialist commune, and I can have my capitalist commune. Just don't be upset when yours fails or if barely any end up forming to begin with. There will still at least be worker coops for you to join. They will just operate under the context of the market economy. Also, in the absence of a state, people will most likely operate under some modified version of customary law. Unless you somehow brainwash the entire population, nobody but socialists will adopt anarcho-communism.

[RGacky3]

It isn't like that at all, as the capitalist/worker relationship is mutually beneficial.


Only as much as the noble/peasent relationsihp is mutually beneficial. If you accept Capitalist property you could argue it is, but its not beneficial for the worker to accept the rules that Capitalits set, such as capitalist property, so ultimately .... no its not, its a relationship created by and for the benefit of the Capitalist class.


But as I have been saying before, you can have your socialist commune, and I can have my capitalist commune. Just don't be upset when yours fails or if barely any end up forming to begin with. There will still at least be worker coops for you to join. They will just operate under the context of the market economy. Also, in the absence of a state, people will most likely operate under some modified version of customary law. Unless you somehow brainwash the entire population, nobody but socialists will adopt anarcho-communism.

How on earth are you going to enforce capitalist property without a state, how are you going to have the type of property that allows a market without a state. You know whats going to happen?

People will accept capitalist property as long as it benefits them, and as soon as it does'nt, and a class system develops, the lower class will simply not accept it, then the ruling class will create a state like insitution to keep their power. How on earth do you think Capitalism came about the way it is today?

Or anyone that is a worker will simple go to the socialist commune, because they'll be better off their.

You get rid of the state, the capitalist system will either come tumbling down, OR (more likely) The capitalist class will create something 10 times more tyrannical than the state to hold on to their power. The market is a state institution.

[Skooma Addict]

How on earth are you going to enforce capitalist property without a state, how are you going to have the type of property that allows a market without a state. You know whats going to happen?Well obviously nobody knows exactly what will happen. But if markets can exist in Somalia after a brutal war and an overthrowing of a dictator, they can exist in America. Also, notice how the Somalis did hold onto their customary law?

I can also look historically at the "Wild West" and other historical examples and draw conclusions.



People will accept capitalist property as long as it benefits them, and as soon as it does'nt, and a class system develops, the lower class will simply not accept it, then the ruling class will create a state like insitution to keep their power. How on earth do you think Capitalism came about the way it is today?This might be a valid argument if it were not for the fact that private property is very beneficial for all classes. It is the most economical form of property and it is what allows for civilization.

[RGacky3]

But if markets can exist in Somalia after a brutal war and an overthrowing of a dictator, they can exist in America. Also, notice how the Somalis did hold onto their customary law?

With Machine guns in the hands of warlords .... THAT is Capitalism without a democratic state.


I can also look historically at the "Wild West" and other historical examples and draw conclusions.

The wild west was only wild when large property rights were not threatend, the state was willing and ready when it came to large landowners and big buisiness. But hey, if thats what your going for, Somalia, and gun slinging times, then go ahead, kind of a hard thing to sell though.


This might be a valid argument if it were not for the fact that private property is very beneficial for all classes. It is the most economical form of property and it is what allows for civilization.

Its not beneficial for the class that does'nt have any property, also its NOT the most ecnomical form of property considering it is only profit based, also as far as your civilization argument, thats rediculous, a cooporative economy is much more civilized than an ologarchal competative one.

People could have argued before that a monarchy is what allows for civilization as well.

[Skooma Addict]

With Machine guns in the hands of warlords .... THAT is Capitalism without a democratic state.You are comparing apples to oranges. Somalia wasn't, nor will it be a democratic state. Obviously I would choose a Western European democracy over Somalia. However, I would choose Somalia without a government over Somalia with a government, as living conditions have improved after the collapse of the government.

Likewise, as the Somali government will be very different than Americas government, it is also true that American anarchy will look different than Somalian anarchy. Also, there were reasons why the warlord situation is as bad as it is, but I won't get into that now. If you are interested read Peter Leeson on the topic.


The wild west was only wild when large property rights were not threatened, the state was willing and ready when it came to large landowners and big business. But hey, if thats what your going for, Somalia, and gun slinging times, then go ahead, kind of a hard thing to sell though.The West was far safer than the East during the same time period. During the time I am referring to, the state never came to aid business as far as I am aware of. Don't quote me on this, but I believe the nearest military of police outpost was 500 miles away (ill have to look it up again). There were in fact private police and community guards who did enforce contracts which were formed between competing groups of people.

In fact the whole thing is amazing. Groups of different people from vastly different backgrounds all came to one place looking for the same scarce resource with the intent on leaving very soon afterwords. Yet conflict was minimal.


Its not beneficial for the class that does'nt have any property, also its NOT the most ecnomical form of property considering it is only profit based, also as far as your civilization argument, thats rediculous, a cooporative economy is much more civilized than an ologarchal competative one. It is beneficial for everyone in the long run. The reason why it is economical is because it is profit based. It rationally allocates resources through individuals attempting to maximize their own profit. This is very strength of the markets price system.

A cooperative economy must either have no medium of exchange or a centrally imposed one (in which case one wonders how it can be cooperative with such a powerful central authority which has to impose a medium of exchange). It is not civil in any way. Given the choice, I would have the people I care about live in a "competitive" economy no matter what their income level is.


People could have argued before that a monarchy is what allows for civilization as well. OK, and some probably did. Point being?

[Dermezel]

Trust me, corporations would love to destroy any vestiges of a public State or Democracy. Anything that was created by past Revolutions- which first extended the powers of Parliaments, and then, to the General Middle Class and Bourgeoise, and then eventually to Universal Suffrage.

That way, they can just form Monopolies and Oligopolies backed by Mercenary Armies. Just like the Monarchies in Days of Old.

Kings and Queens basically represented Pure Privatization. Although Competition was a little more fierce.

[Skooma Addict]

Trust me


No.

[Dermezel]

No.

Well then don't trust me, just consider how they would be without Anti-Trust Regulations. Or how they were in the Victorian Era- Robber Baron Days.

[RGacky3]

However, I would choose Somalia without a government over Somalia with a government, as living conditions have improved after the collapse of the government.

I'd like to see the statistics about that and how they were collected, also, many small governments is not better than one central one.


Likewise, as the Somali government will be very different than Americas government, it is also true that American anarchy will look different than Somalian anarchy. Also, there were reasons why the warlord situation is as bad as it is, but I won't get into that now. If you are interested read Peter Leeson on the topic.


If it were true Anarchy there would be no Market, soo, yeah.


The West was far safer than the East during the same time period. During the time I am referring to, the state never came to aid business as far as I am aware of. Don't quote me on this, but I believe the nearest military of police outpost was 500 miles away (ill have to look it up again). There were in fact private police and community guards who did enforce contracts which were formed between competing groups of people.

In fact the whole thing is amazing. Groups of different people from vastly different backgrounds all came to one place looking for the same scarce resource with the intent on leaving very soon afterwords. Yet conflict was minimal.

I'd like your sources on this, I'm not saying I don't believe you, I just want to know the sources, and the time period and so on.


It is beneficial for everyone in the long run. The reason why it is economical is because it is profit based. It rationally allocates resources through individuals attempting to maximize their own profit. This is very strength of the markets price system.

Its not beneficial in the long run and we've seen that. THe profit base means that only consumer need gets taken care of and social need does not.It allocates resources in a compleatly irrational way, through profits, meaning if your on top to stay on top you must constatly get more and more, which means externalixing as much as possible, also keep in mind it allocates resources based on who has money, not based on actual needs.


A cooperative economy must either have no medium of exchange or a centrally imposed one (in which case one wonders how it can be cooperative with such a powerful central authority which has to impose a medium of exchange). It is not civil in any way. Given the choice, I would have the people I care about live in a "competitive" economy no matter what their income level is.

A market economy ALSO needs a centrally imposed medium of exchange, also a cooperative economy is not based on exchange at all, thats why its cooperative.


OK, and some probably did. Point being?

Well, monarchies fell, and civilization is still around ...

[Skooma Addict]

I'd like to see the statistics about that and how they were collected, also, many small governments is not better than one central one.

http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

On page 12. However, Leeson explains some of the data further throughout the article.


I'd like your sources on this, I'm not saying I don't believe you, I just want to know the sources, and the time period and so on.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf


A market economy ALSO needs a centrally imposed medium of exchange, also a cooperative economy is not based on exchange at all, thats why its cooperative.

It does not since currency emerges from barter without any central authority planning the process.


Well, monarchies fell, and civilization is still around ...

Well yea, I agree with you. People who thought that a monarchy was required for civilization were incorrect.

[RGacky3]

(http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf)http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
(http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf)http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf (http://www.anonym.to/?http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf)
(http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf)

Thanks I'll get back when I have time to look them over.


It does not since currency emerges from barter without any central authority planning the process.


Any examples of this?


Well yea, I agree with you. People who thought that a monarchy was required for civilization were incorrect.

I submit the same is true with property.

[LeftSideDown]

Any examples of this?

Well, according to wikipedia: " The first known ruler who officially set standards of weight and money was Pheidon [9]" (7th century BC).

However, wikipedia also says: "The Sumer civilization developed a large scale economy based on commodity money"

"The Shekel referred to an ancient unit of weight and currency. The first usage of the term came from Mesopotamia circa 3000 BC. and referred to a specific mass of barley which related other values in a metric such as silver, bronze, copper etc. A barley/shekel was originally both a unit of currency and a unit of weight, just as the British Pound was originally a unit denominating a one pound mass of silver.
In cultures where metal working was unknown, shell or ivory jewelry were the most divisible, easily storable and transportable, scarce, and hard to counterfeit objects that could be made. It is highly unlikely that there were formal markets in 100,000 BCE (any more than there are in recently observed hunter-gatherer cultures).[citation needed] Nevertheless, proto-money would have been useful in reducing the costs of less frequent transactions that were crucial to hunter-gatherer cultures, especially bride purchase, splitting property upon death, tribute, and inter-tribal trade in hunting ground rights ("starvation insurance") and implements."

"Many cultures around the world eventually developed the use of commodity money. Ancient China and Africa used cowrie shells. Trade in Japan's feudal system was based on the koku - a unit of rice per year. The shekel was an ancient unit of weight and currency. The first usage of the term came from Mesopotamia circa 3000 BC and referred to a specific weight of barley, which related other values in a metric such as silver, bronze, copper etc. A barley/shekel was originally both a unit of currency and a unit of weight.[8]
Where ever trade is common, barter systems usually lead quite rapidly to several key goods being imbued with monetary properties. In the early British colony of New South Wales, rum emerged quite soon after settlement as the most monetary of goods. When a nation is without a currency it commonly adopts a foreign currency. In prisons where conventional money is prohibited, it is quite common for cigarettes to take on a monetary quality, and throughout history, gold has taken on this unofficial monetary function."

So yeah, cigarettes emerge naturally in POW camps and Prisons as money. So theres one concrete example, the rest of this being circumstantial evidence.

[RGacky3]

"The Sumer civilization developed a large scale economy based on commodity money"



That was under a governmental system, does'nt count, these are all governmental systems, the same as now.

As far as Prison, if you want to use that as an example, combined with prison gangs and the such, as the hallmark of the free market you are free to do so. (But I'm sure you'll find reasons its not a good example).

[Phased Out]

In regards to large corporate banks, there was some ridiculous moral outrage over what news pundits called a “new breed of deadbeats”: people who walk away from their mortgage in order to save money, even though they can afford to keep paying it.

Those people did nothing illegal. Nor do I think those people did anything immoral. When corporations deal with individuals, such as their employees, corporate profits comes above any moral obligation such as not laying people off during a recession when the employees wouldn’t be able to find a new job. Since corporations have no problem screwing over individuals, why shouldn’t individuals screw over the corporation when the law is on their side?

I blame the banks for making a no-money-down mortgage loan on an over-appreciated property in a state with non-recourse mortgage laws.

[RGacky3]

why shouldn’t individuals screw over the corporation when the law is on their side?

I absolutely agree, this is the same reason the media harps all over unions for asking for higher wages, but they don't bat an eye over corporations making more profits at the expense of workers.

[Dermezel]

I like how people act as though the Gold standard was not itself susceptible to all sorts of fraud and abuse. The very beginning of Utopia describes nothing but the dozen plus ways Monarchs would manipulate gold and silver currencies in order to artificially boost their wealth.