Is now the time to shut down all corporations?

[Boojatta]

Originally, unions were illegal for a very simple reason. A legitimate economic transaction is a trade between two individuals because only individuals exist. There is no such thing as society. When more than two individuals enter into an agreement with each other to form a labor union, they are practicing collectivism. Not only did governments refuse to recognize such agreements as legally binding, but they violently intervened to break up unions.

At this moment in history, we can see that a corporation can be a kind of mini-society, a collective that (just like a union) forces its evil unreality upon the real world. Furthermore, a corporation's activities have economic consequences, and thus, before a corporation achieves anything resembling monopoly power, it is already distorting the economic picture. If the owners, directors, and managers of a corporation comprise more than two people, then the rules of that corporation constitute an agreement that isn't legitimate. Given that such an agreement isn't legitimate, we naturally arrive at the idea of shutting down corporations and allowing individuals to achieve their own economic destiny by means of unrestrained trade between any two individuals who choose to trade with each other.

Few people ask themselves why unions were outlawed. They simply label it as an unfortunate episode of history that is best forgotten. Obviously it wasn't any collectivist conspiracy that caused unions to be outlawed. It was a heroic effort by champions of individualism who fought for and temporarily won the battle against collectivism. Their effort set an important precedent. Instead of hoping to use the collectivism of the union as a weak counter-balance against the collectivism of the corporation, shouldn't we be trying to outlaw both unions and corporations? Yes, such a plan will be initially unpopular with the representatives of organized labor, but we need to look beyond that. We need to appeal to the champions of individualism and show them that we are willing to give them something that they already want.

[jgraz]

1. Absolutely not.

Some of them should be nationalized. :evilgrin:

[Winterblues]

2. Most small business in America are incorporated.

You want to shut most business in America, I don't think that is wise..

[On the Road]

3. How Would Individualism Work

in an airplane factory or a steel mill?

[Oregone]

4. Uh, no.

Unless you want to completely shift from the entire capitalistic model (fine by me), but you need something viable to shift into. Another approach is to simply target services that you wish to remove the profit from (or share the wealth), and thereby create a stronger mixed-market. If you aren't thinking of restructuring the entire model in which commerce happens, you are merely going to hamstring it.

[CreekDog]

5. Yes, good idea

And it's also important that we don't overreact. :crazy:

[cali]

6. put down the pipe and/or bottle.

[leveymg]

8. Or, at least, pass it around.

:beer: :smoke:

[Boojatta]

14. How about passing around the Original Post?

You have my permission to copy and paste it here:

http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?s=&showforum=42

[leveymg]

7. Time to make the corporations legal "non-persons", again. Revoke the charter of the bad actors.

Prosecute and go after the personal assets of the CEOs of Hallibuton and AIG, and such.

Jail a few fatcats. That would send a useful message to the rest.

[gratuitous]

9. There's a case to be made for that . . .

After all, the people maimed or killed by defectively designed or manufactured GM vehicles are now shit out of luck when it comes to holding GM responsible for their tortious actions. If you or I inflicted grievous harm or death on someone through negligence or deliberate indifference to their well being, we'd be liable for their damages. But a corporation not only can't be thrown in jail if it can be shown they acted with criminal disregard for the all-too-foreseeable consequences of their actions in pursuit of profits, they can't even be held civilly liable.

Corporations appear to be "super citizens" not subject to any criminal or civil sanction for transgressing against society.

[Raskolnik]

11. Corporations can't have civil liability?

Are you sure about that?

[gratuitous]

13. I stated that poorly

Of course corporations can be held civilly liable. But in the case of GM, they've fucked up so badly that they can't even be held liable for their tortious actions. GM is now basically off the hook for any current lawsuits against it for defectively designed or manufactured cars, thanks to its filing of bankruptcy and its status as a self-insured entity. People who have been injured, maimed or killed by GM cars are now in the pool of unsecured creditors, i.e., the end of the line for payment of GM's debts.

For a private citizen like you or me, if we filed for bankruptcy, any civil suits pending against us at the time of filing would be stayed until we had come out of bankruptcy, and the case would proceed as before. The personal injury and wrongful death claims against GM will be probably be wiped away by the bankruptcy court.

I suppose there's a possibility that as a condition of their reorganization, GM will have to buy liability insurance, but I don't know if that's very likely. And if they do have to be insured by a third party carrier, they'll bide their time for a couple of years, and then squawk about how horribly unfair it all is that they have to pay all these insurance premiums, and some short-memoried, sympathetic free market numbskull will sponsor legislation that will allow GM to self insure once again.

[dusmcj]

10. yes, bomb them into the stone age /nt

(just kidding, sniffer twits)

[OKNancy]

12. LOL - my ballet school is a corporation

I suppose I could change to an LLC if you want to outlaw it, but I don't see the benefit.

[Boojatta]

15. Kick

[Boojatta]

16. Kick

[Boojatta]

17. Kick

[Boojatta]

18. Kick