Tom Vogt writes:
>Gil Hamilton wrote:
> > You seem to be saying that there's nothing wrong with simply defining
>away
> > the rights of the owners by changing the legal fine print that
>establishes
> > the government's treatment of the corporation.
>
>yes, that is what I'm saying. see, by putting your money into a
>corporation, you also put it into trust in your government. the local
>legal system provides the ground rules for your transaction. it can
>change them. you do NOT have a natural right that says the rules may not
>change.
And I strongly disagree. "Providing the ground rules" is an interference in
the "natural" system of commerce that I (and every investor) tolerate (a)
because it is relatively minor, (b) because all of us sheeple have been
conditioned from birth to accept the Benevolent Guidance and Protection of
government, and (c) because there's little I can (instantly) do about it.
The fact that businesses have to abide governmental regulation doesn't
establish them as purely artificial government-established entities. After
all, individuals too have to live with laws established by the regimes under
which they live. Would you argue that individuals have no natural rights,
only those given to them by the benevolent governmental entities that
"provide the ground rules" under which they're forced to live?
>let's say we just do away with corporations. we declare them as
>nonexistent, as far as the law is concerned, and throw away 300 kg of
>tax-, corporate-, business- and other related laws. how exactly does
>this lead to an overregulatory government?
Huh? It would be hard indeed to argue that throwing away laws leads to an
"overregulatory government"; the question at the end of that paragraph makes
no sense. So, I'll ignore it and merely address the intro.
Let's say we did "do away with corporations". I understand this to mean
that we would be doing away with *governmental laws* regarding the operation
of corporations. This would not imply doing away with the businesses they
represent, as their investors would still wish to make a profit. It is this
desire to form associations for the purpose of engaging in commerce that I
call a business, and it is this notion of business that retains the rights
of its owners.
So, for example, if you "did away with corporations", "Intel Corporation"
might no longer exist as a government-recognized entity, but there'd still
be an organization using the name Intel, and representing the shareholders
of the current Intel Corp. and wishing to manufacture and sell
microprocessors (et al.) in the interest of making a profit.
In summary, I would agree that the details by which the modern corporation
is run are supplied by government/legal system. However, the fundamental
right to voluntarily enter into an association with other investors and form
a business is, I would argue, a natural one.
- GH
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are ... endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ... That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed."
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
