Tao Jones
My friend Joey King, compatriot in both post-libertarian and Buddhist thought, sent me this link to a wonderful essay on the true nature of corporations. Though written from a Buddhist perspective, the essential message is universally understandable.
It’s as good and concise a summary as I’ve seen explaining the disconnect between the free-enterprise that conservative libertarians claim to champion and the corporate mercantilism for which they so often serve as apologists — and why libertarians — if they actually believe their anti-state, pro-market rhetoric — really belong on the left side of the aisle.
The solution to these problems was ingenious: legally limited liability.[...] Such an arrangement required a special charter from the state [...] What is the relevance of all that now? It shows us, first, that from the very beginning corporations have been involved in colonialism and colonial exploitation [...] Second, it shows us that from the very beginning corporations have also had an incestous relationship with the state.
Aren’t conservatives and libertarians the ones always telling us about the value of personal responsibility?
We begin to understand how “a principle purpose of corporations is to shield the managers and directors who run them, and shareholders who profit, from responsibility for what the corporation actually does.”
So why is this a bad thing?
corporations are legal fictions. Their “body” is a judicial concept — and that is why they are so dangerous, because without a body they are essentially ungrounded to the earth and its creatures, to the pleasures and responsibilities that derive from being manifestations of the earth. You may prefer to say that corporations are unable to be spiritual, for they lack a soul; but I think it amounts to the same thing.
Indeed:
transnational corporations are by their very nature problematical. We cannot solve the problems they create by addressing the conduct of this or that particular corporation; it’s the institution that’s the problem.
[...] Jon’s pimping a very good article at his place that should appeal to a number of you. He says: It’s as good and concise a summary as I’ve seen explaining the disconnect between the free-enterprise that conservative libertarians claim to champion and the corporate mercantilism for which they so often serve as apologists — and why libertarians — if they actually believe their anti-state, pro-market rhetoric — really belong on the left side of the aisle. [...]
I couldn’t even get past the first sentence.
“We have given corporations dominion over the sustaining of our lives.”
We have? Says who? I choose to give corporations my money. I could just as easily go live with the Amish or live on a communal farm if I wanted to.
There is a thing called personal responsibility, and you can’t blame the corporations for taking the money that people willingly give them, not to mention the fact that “the corporations” are made up of millions of individuals who are also faced with the same choices everyday.
I’m going to try and slog throug the rest of the essay because I choose to, and I am always on the look out for different ideas. If you are equally as interested in examining new ideas, I have an essay for you.
How to Explain Conservatism to Your Squishy Liberal Friends: Individualism ‘R’ Us
http://www.buildfreedom.com/tribute/o‘rourke/explain.html
>There is a thing called personal responsibility
Yes, so why support a mechanism that uses the state to absolve oneself of that responsibility?
Do not confuse this for being anti-market. It is not a left wing screed against business. This is about the corporate mechanism itself being anti-market, an enemy of private business.
“why support a mechanism that uses the state to absolve oneself of that responsibility?”
What mechanism are you talking about? I think you are creating boogeymen here. There will always be corruption in humans, regardless of the economic structure in place. You want to place the blame for the corrupt individuals who distort the markets for their own personal gain on some faceless entity “the Coporations” (dun dun DUNNNNNNNN).
Some corporations are good, and without them we would have many more problems in world. Some are bad, and they become the source of some of our troubles in the world. But both of them are still at the core individuals who bear responsibility for the direction of the corporation itself. That’s my point-the corporation isn’t faceless. It has names and personalities that dictate its direction.
That’s why the statement “We have given corporations dominion over the sustaining of our lives.” is ridiculous. The are no corporations that have “dominion” over our lives unless we choose to allow them to do so.
>What mechanism are you talking about?
What do you think a corporation *is*? It’s a mechanism by which the state creates a legal fiction in order to separate the owners of a business from the actions of — and therefore the liabilities for the actions of — a business. Hell it’s right there in the term “Limited Liability”.
*Of course* there will always be corruption in humans. What’s your point? That allowing people to profit from corruption without consequence is a good thing? Or should people just maybe be responsible for the actions of the businesses they own?
Um, are you familiar with the corporation Enron?
The corporation where people whose company broke the law were thrown in jail?
How about Global Crossing?
There were 1,150,000 responses from a google query of “CEO’s in jail”.
You seem to be inferring that no one ever gets held responsible of they hide behind the “corporation” when that clearly is not the case.
And those CEO’s owned 100% of the stock in those companies?
What does that matter? They broke the law. They went to jail.
You said “should people just maybe be responsible for the actions of the businesses they own?” and I’m saying that they are.
You can make the argument that they should be held MORE responsible, and I might agree with you, but your blanket condemnations of “the evil corporations” is ridiculous. I guarantee you that right this very second you are either wearing or using or eating or drinking or sitting or typing on something made by the evil coporations. And you choose to have these things. The “evil coporations” didn’t hold a gun to your head and make you buy them.
Where did I say all corporations were evil? Or that the corporation itself was ‘evil’?
You’re pimping this article above, the last sentence in the whole article states-
“As long as corporations remain the primary instruments of economic globalisation, they endanger the future of our children and the world they will live in.”
Isn’t that kinda evil?
I didn’t write the article. I never said I agreed with every single word the guy wrote.
What parts do you disagree with?
The parts that I agree with without reservation or qualification are the parts that I quoted.
Do you agree with this statement-
“As long as corporations remain the primary instruments of economic globalisation, they endanger the future of our children and the world they will live in.”
?
That’s a vague statement open to numerous interpretations, but certainly not in the melodramatic sense in which the author likely intends it, no.