Gil Hamilton wrote:
> >no, I would definitely NOT argue that last point. however, corporations
> >are established entirely WITHIN the framework of the legal system. it is
> >the legal system that defines what exacatly a corporation is, for
> >example that M$ is one, but the mafia is not. humans are not created
> >inside the legal system.
>
> So, to take this argument back to its roots: You apparently would argue that
> the mafia, being a voluntary association NOT established entirely within the
> framework of the legal system, retains its owners' natural rights to
> collect, own and use information as it sees fit without regard to arbitrary
> government edicts, while Microsoft, being entirely a creation of the State,
> has no such right?
>
> That is indeed a bizarre result.
indeed it is.
the fine point is that M$ in return gets rights the mafia has not. so in
practice, you're possibly better of the M$ way (the sheer number of
corporations proves this). it's just that should the government fall,
M$'s "rights" (created by the government) will fall as well. the mafia's
"rights" (created by its own guns) do not.
> You still seem to be maintaining that, because the details of corporate
> ownership and operation are subject to governmental regulation, therefore
> the business that is represented by the corporation, and by extension its
> owners, retains none of the owners' rights.
I maintain that the owners have given up their personal rights in
exchange for government-created corporate rights. as long as the
government is stable, that is usually a good deal.
