Perhaps to left libertarians. Konkin spent more time insulting other libertarians (especially Rothbard) he didnt like than he did actually accomplishing anything.
What did Konkin do after 1990? The last 14 years of his life were a wash. Hoppe is only 2 years younger than Konkin.
Comparing Konkin to Hoppe is like comparing Menger to Mises.
Who?
He did lean left. And he came back to the right. But that’s beside the point, because Rothbard was above left and right, as we should all be trying to achieve.
That’s pretty much the outsider definition of a LL. Their role is to complain about other libertarians.
Rothbard on Konkin:
"No. Much as I love the market, I refuse to believe that when I engage in a regular market transaction (e.g., buying a sandwich) or a black market activity (e.g., driving at 60 miles per hour) I advance one iota nearer the libertarian revolution. The black market is not going to be the path to liberty, and libertarian theoreticians and activists have no function in that market. I think this is why the only real activity of Mr. Konkin and his colleagues is confined to annoying members of the Libertarian Party."
It’s nice to see that things haven’t changed.
Source please?
And the wider context of that quote involved Rothbard justifying electoral politics as a path to liberty. Given that almost everyone involved in this debate is against electoral politics, Rothbard was wrong in this case, and Konkin was right.
It is also worth mentioning that Rothbard was a founding advisor to the Agorist Institute. In 1985.
Rothbard being wrong on politics does not automatically nullify the wrongness of Konkin.
No, that doesn’t follow and I’m not claiming that. I’m claiming that Konkin was right in this particular instance, in his opposition to parliamentarianism.
What a joke. The “intellectual” part of that excludes Konkin from the go. Has he ever written anything worth reading? Hoppe on the other hand, written 4 books, edited a fifth, and written quite a few articles.
I think you can both put away the measuring rods and let this topic get back on track…
Perhaps, it’s merely necessary for you to have read something on the topic before commenting. In any case, you said they’re ceding ownership to a government controlled and created entity, isn’t the exactly what you’re trying to prove? Although, it isn’t necessary, but what is your point? It merely makes formal, what is already implicit. When you do business with a corporation, you agree not to come after the shareholders should you want to sue the business. Of course, you would necessarily need to prove some Austrian theory of causation in order to sue the shareholder(s) anyway, for those who haven’t done the business. Incorporating merely makes the process of sueing the firm easier, and if fact it is advantageous from the persective of those doing the sueing, since corporations usually have deeper pockets than any of the individuals that comprise the corporation.
What do you mean, it’s not a unilateral agreement, since anybody doing business with a corporation implicitly consents not to sue the individual shareholders but the corporation. Those who are effected by the actions of the corporation but haven’t made contractual agreements can still sue the corporations or the individual shareholders provided they can come up with an Austrian theory of causality. No suprises, people generally choose to sue the former.
What, if I own a gun some idiot picks it up and shoots himself in the leg, I am somehow responsible? No, AE teaches us that there are subjective motivations for our actions, any rational theory of causality must take this into account.
Who is ceding control? This is baseless assertion.
The Fifth Amendment reads:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
This consititutional protection was then used successfully by a corporation and cited by the Supreme Court in its decision NOBLE V. UNION RIVER LOGGING.
Delaware Corporate law, under which most corporations in the US operate, states:
Every corporation created under this chapter shall have power to: Purchase, receive, take by grant, gift, devise, bequest or otherwise, lease, or otherwise acquire, own, hold, improve, employ, use and otherwise deal in and with real or personal property, or any interest therein, wherever situated, and to sell, convey, lease, exchange, transfer or otherwise dispose of, or mortgage or pledge, all or any of its property and assets, or any interest therein, wherever situated.
“Implicit agreements” like the social contract you mean? Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law? Even though there are so many laws noone actually knows all of them? If I go to a business, how do I know whether it is incorporated. Not all businesses put “inc.” in their names. Even if they did, you cannot assume that I will know what that means. In the US, there is a different body of corporate law in every state, but any corporation only is subject the corporate law of the state they incorporated in, even if you are doing business with them in a different state. Is everyone, before they do business with a corporation, to look up the state they’re based in, then look up its laws of incorporation (which tend to be written in a very dense fashion)? Any rule that limits one’s actions/rights, beyond the basic property and other basic rights of humans, needs to be explicitly spelled out, and agreed to by anyone you intend to hold to those restrictions, or you should not allow them on the premises.
That is not an unreasonable risk. Picking up a gun and shooting yourself in the leg will clearly harm you, and if you did it clumsily that’s your fault. Now, if you have a gun that just goes off at random intervals, and you allow him to use it without telling him so, then yes, you are liable.
JC is not an Austrian IIRC.
But you haven’t addressed how the liability is any different for a corporation or an individual. An individual would just claim bankruptcy if the settlement was beyond his capital means to pay. And likewise, a corporation is setup by the amount of capital put in, not the total value of all of the owners behind it.
If you really believed in unlimited liability, then you would have to be for debtor prisons and/or enslavement. No, with an individual, you’ll accept payment up to his ability to pay, but with a firm, you expect to be able to dig deeper. It’s hypocritical IMO.
When you deal with a firm, you deal with the firm. If that is an unincorporated individual, then he’s using a business model (intentionally no less) that exposes all of his capital, but also allows him to use all of his capital. A corporation can’t stop off at individual shareholder’s homes and pick up some hot dogs and beer for the company picnic.
Then why is he posting on a forum for discussing Austrian economics?
Big tent. Those filthy vulgar capitalistic Austrians are able to afford a big tent with all of their evil and vile capitalist loot, stolen from the proletariat and assembled only behind the gloved fist of the state.
The great thing is, it keeps BrainPolice off Blogger where Google will track all of his readers, and report them to Walmart for disintegration and re-education as wage slave robots. muwahahaaa!~
I get it, guilt by association.
No, implicit agreement like, when you order food from a restaurant, you agree to pay. Even if you don’t make your acknoledgement of your obligation to pay explicit.
If you do business with somebody it’s your responsibility to check whether or not they’re incorporated. Like it is with everything else, so you can stop the special pleading now.
And then you continue with more guilt by association. It’s not the corporations fault if the state is not consistant.
Not really.
Then I’ll bounce it back, why do you post here on a libertarian website when clearly you should be on some forum advocating feudalism? They’re free-market serfs, right?
As for myself, I believe Austrians have many insights which are worthwhile. Indeed, their basic principles are very solid. It is the progression from those principals where they fail.
this need not be dignified with further comment