Gil Hamilton wrote:
> >the rights of businesses are completely artificial. a biz is an
> >artifical entity that doesn't have any existence aside from paperwork
> >(the property it owns is "real", but that doesn't make the business any
> >more real than the existence of churches proves the existence of god).
> >as such they have no "natural" and "inaliable" rights, but only those
> >artificial rights granted to them by the local government. it just
> >happens that they've managed to lobby most govs into giving them a whole
> >bunch of rights.
>
> The business is a representation of the owners, who are real people with
> actual rights.
yes, but a representation is just that. as I said: the existence of
churches or icons does not prove the existence of god, and does not give
god the right to, say, vote in elections.
if I decide to give my money to a representation, that's my choice. but
both of them are still just a piece of paper.
> A business is created with real capital (cash and other
> forms of value) advanced by the owners. Anything the business "owns" --
> property, information, etc. -- is actually owned by the owners of the
> business. Hence, any right that inheres to the owners spills over (as Kevin
> put it) to the business.
I disagree. the legal system puts it this way, which is exactly what I'm
saying above. it's just that this is an ARBITRARY solution to the
problem, and any other would be just as "valid".
there's a lot of other things arbitrary in our culture's dealing with
the phenomenon of business entities. for example, while they have many
rights of real persons (can own property) many duties do not apply (I've
never heard of a company sent to jail (i.e. closed down for a time) or
being subject to the death sentence (i.e. closed down permanently)
because of crimes that would have resulted in these sentences for real
persons).
other areas are less "outlandish", if you prefer. for example: why can
corporations not vote? they surely are entities of the local area with
interests in the political future.
> There are many (particularly in governments) who don't like this and would
> try to deny it. This is unsurprising and completely in line with their
> usual attempts to appropriate things of value created by others for their
> own purposes.
I'm not at all pro-government in this. I'm just fascinated by the
complete arbitrariness of it all.
