How do companies decide?

[liberty_student]

@z1235

Starting from an initial set of independent economic agents (acting humans), organizations of 2+ agents (shared ownership companies) seem to consistently emerge. Let’s call all such organizations meta-agents. How do meta-agents decide, and what is the theory (if any) of meta-agent action?

Let’s go back to this.

If you can agree that ways to decide include majority decision making (or minority decision making) or proportional (based on ownership stake) decision making and concensus, among other possibilities, then the notion of surrendering freedom would not be consistent for meta agency, but only for specific forms of meta agency.

Thus, it is a fallacy of composition to fashion a sometimes true statement about meta agents into a theory for of all meta agency.

That’s the first hurdle we have to overcome. Let’s define the argument clearly.

[z1235]

@Liberty Student

You’re conflating freedom (a psychological concept which is non-scarce) with property. Flawed premise is flawed, no matter how many times you conflate freedom with time and/or property.

I’m not sure scarcity of X is necessary for establishing and comparing time-preference of X. Please explain such necessity. In addition, how are time and property not psychological, and isn’t scarcity subject-situation dependent (e.g. air above vs. 100ft below water’s surface, and to a subject featuring gills vs. lungs)?

Wealth is also a psychological concept. GDP is meaningless because it barely makes sense within the existing paradigm, and wouldn’t make sense at all in a free market from a praxeological point of view.

How about capital, or money? Are they psychological, too? If they aren’t, please replace all references to wealth in this thread with capital or money. I don’t understand your references to a free market and praxeology. If GDP is meaningless, please propose an alternative measure for prosperity. Or is it your contention that prosperity (wealth creation) is also psychological thus not amenable to measurement and comparison?

As a methodological individualist, I would say that wealth is created by individuals, and that meta-agency is only a form of organization, not a unique entity unto itself EVEN WHEN given that status by the state by way of license.

Agreed. Individuals are the ones that voluntarily surrender full control (freedom) over their capital to meta-agents (companies). Still: “I contend that most of the wealth/capital on this planet is created via meta-agents (companies) that operate on the principle of majority vote by their stake-holders.” Yes or no?

It really does inconvenience your argument which presupposed an exchange of freedom to participate with the meta agent.

The consensus needed for the exchange (surrender, really) of freedom is different from the consensus by which a meta-agent may operate. The former is an exchange-related consensus between party A (current meta-agent co-owner) and party B (prospective meta-agent co-owner). The latter consensus is a method for controlling/managing the meta-agent, as an alternative to voting. How does the exchange-related consensus inconvenience my argument that voting is a much more prevalent method of meta-agent control/management than consensus?

If you want to prove a theory or establish a principle, you can’t ignore all of the meta agents running on concensus. At best, your argument might make sense for meta agents where majority vote prevails, but it is not true of all meta agents, and just because this is the system that evolved, doesn’t prove that this is the only system there could be, should be or will be!

I’m not ignoring consensus. I only want to establish that voting has presently evolved as a superior method for large meta-agents. I also cannot see how consensus could logically even come close. I agree that this does not prove that nothing more superior may appear in the future.

Same here, but this argument has a really low ROI for me. You’re mixing terms and misidentifying concepts, then omitting them when I bring it up. I see what you’re trying to argue but it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. You really need to check your premises. I can only repeat myself (and likewise) so many times as I think we’re dangerously close to talking past each other completely.

My ROI isn’t too high either. It appears that we could both benefit more from dropping this at this point. Thanks for the debate.

[liberty_student]

@z1235

My ROI isn’t too high either. It appears that we could both benefit more from dropping this at this point. Thanks for the debate.

Answer my last post please.

[z1235]

@Liberty Student

If you can agree that ways to decide include majority decision making (or minority decision making) or proportional (based on ownership stake) decision making and concensus, among other possibilities, then the notion of surrendering freedom would not be consistent for meta agency, but only for specific forms of meta agency.

All (including the above) forms of meta-agency involve surrender of single-agent freedom, so surrendering freedom is (not only consistent with but is) a defining attribute of meta-agency.

[liberty_student]

@z1235

All (including the above) forms of meta-agency involve surrender of single-agent freedom, so surrendering freedom is (not only consistent with but is) a defining attribute of meta-agency.

But they don’t involve surrender. With concensus, they agree to act only when they are unanimous. How can that be construed as a surrender? What is lost?

[z1235]

@Liberty Student

But they don’t involve surrender. With concensus, they agree to act only when they are unanimous. How can that be construed as a surrender? What is lost?

What is lost is the freedom to act without the limitation bolded above. Meta-agency involves pooling of capital. Your freedom to control your capital individually is, by default, always larger than your freedom to control it when pooled with others in a meta-agency, the decision method (voting, consensus, etc.) notwithstanding.