Ok this has somewhat been covered before and I hate to bring it up again but I can’t wrap my head around the concept that corporations would stop existing in the absence of the state. It’s akin to saying that cars would seize to exist in the absence of the state because we would have no drivers licenses. Since in a stateless society we may not have drivers licenses, we therefore would not have cars. It doesn’t follow logically.
To me, in a society where the bulk of it’s wealth is the offspring of savings, it makes the most sense for savings to have an easy/safe investment model. There are huge advantages to a society which grows from savings to have both a stock market, and corporations. Business growth can come from savings, not from credit in this way.
Why is it that a corporation, or shared ownership, would just not exist in a stateless society? It doesn’t follow to me.
I wouldn’t argue that corporations wouldn’t exist. Although, I would argue that corporations as we know them today wouldn’t exist. In an anarcho-capitalist society, we could have all sorts of associations between the law, ownership, and capital. I could see minarchists being confused as to how a corporation would exist absent government, since many disregard the possibility of “decent” law in such a society.
Guilds, co-ops, community services, corporations, etc. would proliferate where they are needed. Corporations could be easily called non-community centric service providers (NCSP), as the earlier types of associations tend to be geared toward localist economies & communities, but guilds could also go slighty beyond the community level as well.
Corporations could easily serve a purpose of being free-agent businesses that cater to a customer base not specific to a given region. LLC’s would probably more preferable as streamlined hirearchies & means of production in a stateless society would eventually become useful to use (i.e. desktop publishing).
This is all speculation, of course, so take with a grain of salt.
The key in stateless economy is that there is no grand state entity to enforce what type of associations, businesses, etc. is legal or illegal beyond not violating the two principles of voluntary association & non-coercion, which might be necessary to adhere to in order to prevent the re-emergence of statist privilege in a given a entity. Contracts would be a great way to deal with this, arbitration, etc.
You will probably learn more thinking about it yourself than listening to people (including me) gazing into the crystal ball.
I never pictured Somalia as being at a point where corporations made much sense. Corporations I think are a later or more advanced stage of economic framework, not a beginning stage. As you stated Stranger a certain level of protection must exist first. This is simply infrastructure.
But corporations to me only make sense at a higher stage of the process of accumulating capital and wealth. Savings however would need to go somewhere, people won’t be willing to leave it in their banks forever. They will want to invest it.
So I think considering Somalia as an acurate comparison is inacurate at the moment, as they are still in early stages of economic development. Pherpas the first major Corporation would actually be an insurance agency or PDA? Who knows…
At any rate I don’t see how a corporation needs additional security beyond what any other business would need, only to the extent that they may need added coverage for their size.
I also think it is a fallacy to compare back to times in our distant history when there were no corporations, and less of a state. Technologically and economically we have come a long ways over the past several hundred years. I think a stock market is a logical path to take in a society built on savings.
There are no contentions against normal business models. But a corporation, which wikipedia defines as ‘an institution that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members’ would certainly not exist.
A public equity firm (as opposed to a private equity firm). Maybe that’s what the word ‘corporation’ will mean in the future, but it dawns to me that the current use of ‘incorporated’ refers to the socialized insurance model.
Sounds good. I haven’t the slightest clue as to what Stranger is talking about so I’m going to skip his comment. As usual I see an assertion without an explanation. I dream of the day when Stranger will actually take his own posts seriously enough to explain himself.
On a side note I wouldn’t be too concerned with con-artists. Market mechanisms will easily handle that.
Share holders would purchase shares based upon the level of risk as they do today. In a free market, there would be no agent to relieve shareholders and other owners from liability for their actions. All this means is that owning shares would be riskier in terms of being liable for their actions. My opinion is that any business would be better off in a free market as they would have significantly less regulation placed upon them.
Keep in mind that just because there is not sheild from liability that there would be no people trying to sell partial ownership rights to a corporation. There would be plenty of people looking for higher than bond returns on their capital. People may even create different agreements that transfer the liability of a business. These contracts would look a whole lot like insurance contracts.
There are problems that require lots of people in the solution. The responses named a few: Building Cars, Roads, Bridges. We do not know how people would set up organizations or agreements to handle these scenarios. We can say that the organizations and agreements will optimal relative to the consumers of the products these organizations create and liability will come from the rightful holders of that libility not tax payers.
When investments are made in companies, it’s generally well-known and accepted that the person is taking a risk. By investing, the person is not looking to be protected by the company. On the contrary, they’re looking to have their investment directly affected by the company. If they wanted protection from the company going broke, they can just not invest in the company and chose something else to do with their assets.
Ask first why corporations didn’t exist before the states incorporated them. Well, because there is no legal background for an entity separate from its shareholders. Partnerships and the like did exist, but those cannot raise as much capital as incorporated businesses, which can issue shares. But if it is not incorporated, the same ownership form cannot exist because of transaction costs.
I don’t see how this applies in a stateless society. Assuming no level of government intervention a Corp is sovereign to consumers and shareholders first. The first second either one of those parties feels they are being cheated they are welcome to leave.
But again I am making a bunch of assumptions about your argument since you absolutely refuse to explain yourself(as is always the case with you, short witty remarks. You are the new Scineram). Perhaps you just like to listen to yourself talk? It’s wholly amazing that such fruitless activity is so highly considered here. Such comments as the ones above does nothing to help me learn, help you learn, or help those who just read along learn.