Gil Hamilton wrote:
> >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".
>
> You're not being clear. What "problem" is it that a business is "an
> ARBITRARY solution to"?
seems the fundamental misunderstanding is right here: the problem is:
"how does a society treat an artificial entity (read: biz)?". the
solution is not the biz, the solution is the laws that define which
rights a business has. THESE are arbitrary. we could just as well have
defined a different set of rights/laws.
> You appear to be claiming that businesses would not exist if the "legal
> system" (i.e. government) didn't create them.
almost. I claim that they would not exist in the form they do, since the
legal system defines what a business IS. for example, the
former-communist countries didn't know any equivalent of our
"corporation", but instead had a different framework for a similiar
goal, with collectively owned entities. (let's ignore the usual
communism rants for a while, this is an example)
> However, in any sort of
> government (or even with none), people looking to build wealth would still
> wish to pool their assets with others and operate businesses for the
> purposes of buying, selling and making money.
yes, but HOW this operating works is defined ARBITRARILY by the legal
system. all change starts with the vision of something different being
possible at all.
> This simply proves that (most of) society is able to see a business as
> simply another face put on by individuals. So if a crime is committed, you
> punish the owners (or whatever individuals are actually responsible for the
> commission of the crime).
the interesting part is that a business can transcend the state of being
"another face [of] individuals". who, for example, owns the Deutsche
Bank? I'm fairly sure that it would be a mean task to find the names of
the individuals that do, since most shareholders I know about are yet
other corporations.
> Likewise, corporations do not vote because their owners already have a vote
> and giving a corporation a vote would result in the owners having more than
> one vote, and would therefore be patently unfair. Nothing terribly
> difficult to understand about all this.
not at all. it's just that we could just as well have different laws.
for example, the argument could be made that a corporation (at least
after having reached a certain size) has interests apart and different
from the owners, just as a person (after having reached a certain age)
is assumed to have interests apart from those of his/her parents.
> (For the same reason, businesses should *not* pay taxes. [Even assuming you
> agree that there should *be* taxes.])
and again, the argument can be made in both directions, and for some
reason a decision was made in the way it is today.
why am I discussing the point? because I think that most people are not
aware that our legal framework is this arbitrary. but if it is, that
means it can be changed. if we're not satisfied with the way that
corporations act anymore (regarding privacy, for example) we can change
the laws that the corporation's existence (AS a corporation) is based
on, since there are no "natural" or "inalienable" rights that we could
violate.
