Wow, this post is really sad. Is that all you can do is simply claim “strawman”? You don’t even address anyone’s arguments, just claim “straw man”. You clearly misuse the claim of straw man.
I will name names: Giles Stratton, Byzantine, Stranger and JonBostwick. All of these people have consistantly done what I describe, and it is well documented throughout the threads on this forum over the past year or so. Byzantine in particular has at various points openly and outright advocated fuedalism.
The reoccurring themes with the people that I take issue with are: apologetics for monarchy, the idea that a single person can own an entire city in a free society, support for communitarian-conservative laws against vices and untraditional cultural practises, denial of the rights of children and the upholding of absolute and arbitrary parental authority, class elitism, nationalism, defense of states having immigration restriction policies and blanket defenses of racism.
You see, you’re inventing “vulgar libertarians” here, cut down on the drugs and stop letting your imagination run wild and we may be able to have some productive debate. I’ve never claimed that the status quo is 100% libertarian, nobody has, so you’re just posting strawmen. In fact, the funny thing is that the LLs are analysing corporations in light of statist definition of words.
Says who? It’s funny you should drop the pretense of voluntaryism because it suits you. If I voluntarily contract not to sue shareholders but the corporation then that’s entirely correct by these “libertarian principles” you keep bringing up.
You’re backpeddling here. You previously said that corporations are untenable, you repeated it in the quote selected above and now you claim it is possible but that it isn’t currently justifiable by “libertarian principles”, so what? Nobody has said otherwise.
Because I really see how the notion that the SC in internally contradictory on grounds of free will being a requirement for signing it and yet the SC denying free will has anything to do with corporations.
Well I guess in which case we only disagree on the extent to which they’d disappear. Sorry if I ever implied otherwise.
To be honest to some extent we’re talking past each other, or at least, we’re only discussing extent. I don’t think that they’re 0% or 100% parasitic, just that they’re a lot closer to the former than the latter.
Well, what I’m saying is that upon seeing Inc. at the end of its name they should realise that there is limited liability. If they want to specify otherwise, they’re more than free to. Likewise, the firm is free to reject the offer.
But that isn’t the case, he can sue the corporation, or the managers or workers that sued him. Just not the shareholders.
But my point is that it is extremely hard to prove liability on behalf of the shareholder because most of the time it doesn’t exist, if it does it should be far easier to prove it.
BTW, David_z many thanks for keeping this on topic and remaining intellectual honest, it’s much appreciated. It makes the discussion far more enjoyable.
It’s not necessarily unreasonable, except that common law doesn’t even recognize your abdication of responsibility in the event of negligence, malice, or attractive nuisance. There are exceptions.
Now, the corporation/managing entity as tortfeasor, does the judgment against it (for harm) constitute a superior claim on the future incomes, to that of the shareholders’ dividends? If not, why not?
Are you going to respond to the content of my argument or just go on another non-sequitor tirade?
I was just drawing out the implications of your own argument. Before you jump to saying “straw man”, it might be wise to realize what a reductio ad absurdum is.
The LL’s are the ones rejecting the legitimacy of those statist legal definitions - you guys are the ones defending them under the guise that they are truly libertarian or voluntary in nature.
Says who? Says common sense! People are what are responsible for actions. Nothing about this point drops voluntaryism, it’s a metaphysical and epistemological point about what exists. Human beings are what exist and have responsibilities. To legally shift that responsibility away from human beings and onto a mere legal entity does not pass muster metaphysically or epistemologically.
If you voluntarily contract that no human being at all are is responsible for the effects of their actions, then you’re simply a dumbass. I wouldn’t voluntarily sign such a contract.
I’m not backpeddling. If read the original blog post, it mentions the exact same thing. I never argued against contractually limited liability - but that’s not what corporations currently are. You seem to be confused.
Because it’s really a reductio ad absurdum to attempt to conflate the status quo and what I advocate. Or not. I wonder how well you’d react if I say, apply the same argument to unions.
You’re so intellectually bankrupt.
See Kinsella on this.
Oh that’s quite a wonderful argument BP!
Of course there is, if I make a contract with you saying you won’t sue me in light in event a,b and c. Why isn’t it valid to say that you sue corporation in case of event a,b and c. Especially since the corporation essentially represents people.
THEN PROVE IT.
Or, perhaps it’s too difficult?
So, now we get down to it. This is all about personal preference and ad hoc arguments.
Yes you did, here:
and here:
and here:
and here:
And if you didn’t mean to argue against LL, then what’s your problem? I haven’t either, furthermore I’ve argued and maintained that the leftist conflate defense of corporations with defense of the state. I haven’t ever done that, and if you believe so, prove it.
Don’t play dumb. You yourself have observed the months and months of threads that contain the claims I’m talking about. Do the research yourself, although you shouldn’t have to given that you were a participant on most of the threads in question.
Not at all. When I have addressed this before, I have quoted specifically. I prefer responding precisely to what is said/written, than just making blanket responses in a shotgun fashion. That said, what is misinformed?
Actually, I questioned if you actually did anything at all. I’m not talking about theoreticals. I’m talking about practical, real experience. Application almost always trumps theory. Some criticize corporations, without participating in corporations, or in many cases (Long, Carson) even understanding what a corporation is. So they can theorize until the cows come home, at the end of the day, their knowledge is deficient.
No, it isn’t. But criticizing corporations or the “big business” boogeyman, benefits greatly from having an understanding of commerce, which is not theoretical economics. I know how to make coffee. I don’t pretend I am a pharmacist.
You finally respond to the meat of my argument, with a weak response. My point stands unchallenged, on Carson’s blog, on the Mises blog, and in this forum, as well as my own blog. Now, as D_Z has said, the absence of proof is not proof, but if you hvae a meaningful challenge to my statement, make it or source it. I suspect, you’re constructing another strawman, perhaps the one that the issue is incorporation itself, not the size of the firm incorporated, however that is not the argument made by Carson and Long that I refute. So in advance, spare us the moving of the goalposts.
I’m not really suprised by the lack of economic knowledge of most LLs (David_z not included). What I am suprised by is their ignorance to anything that goes against their LL dogma of equality and that nonsense. The LLs on these forums seem to be entirely incapable of any decency. The left is entirely delusional.
As I though, you have no proof. For 3 or 4 months now, I have hounded you for proof of your false attributions, and every single time, you avoid answering, or attack me personally.
It’s pretty clear to people who follow along who is being dishonest and evasive.
D-Z is not a LL in the sense that these other cats are. He’s intellectually honest. I don’t believe Carson or Long are being intellectually honest. I think they’ve fallen into the trap of appeals to emotion and revolution, over making strong statements backed up by logic and fact.
I highly recommend D-Zs blog. He’s one of the best anarchist bloggers and attracts good commenters as well.
A minor clarification on the OP: Long’s position is what he calls “equality of authority”; he examines the concept of “equality of liberty”, and finds it lacking on the same grounds that were mentioned.
I don’t need to prove to you that human beings exist, you already know that they do. The creation of a legal status does not magically make individual human beings not the ones who are responsible for their actions. In reality, it is only human beings who act. This is starting to sound like praxeology 101. So create all the legal definitions you want, a person is a person, and a person is responsible for their actions regaurdless of what the law says.
You claim that the corporation represents people, yet simultaneously argue that no individual people should be held responsible. If it represents people, then the people that it represents are responsible for their actions. If it is regaurded as something more than people, as an entity in and of itself that exists independantly of its members, than this violates methodological individualism and you’re engaging in a collectivist fallacy.
The argument that you reference trying to prove that I’m against contractually limited liability is an argument against a state law on limited liability. Yes, I argued that if you dump toxic waste on my property, and I never signed a contract with you limiting liability, you are responsible for that. That is NOT an argument against contractual limited liability BECAUSE I NEVER SIGNED ANY LIMITED LIABILITY CONTRACT IN THE EXAMPLE. You don’t even seem to comprehend the argument.
If you wish to argue that noone is responsible for the damages caused by the dumping of toxic waste in the example, you are not presenting an argument for contractual limited liability, you are presenting the argument that noone should be held responsible for it period. There is no contract between the waste dumper and the property owner in the scenario, and I’m siding with the property owner. You appear to be siding with the corporation even regaurdless of any contracts.
As for “leftist conflation of defense of corporations with defense of the state”, you are missing what the point is, which is not an accusation that you’re defending the state, it’s an accusation that your arguments defending corporations are some of the same arguments that people use to defend the state.