3 ms·

> because they are generally considered beneficial Thanks, but no. I don't want to live in a society that's ruled according to other people's ideas of what ben

> because they are generally considered beneficial Thanks, but no. I don't want to live in a society that's ruled according to other people's ideas of what benifits them and find this idea completely immoral and alien. As a person, I want to be able to do whatever I very damn please, benificial or no, as long as it doesn't infringe other person's freedom.

jasonvorhe 8y ago
That's not how the world works, sorry to break it to you.
- golergka 8y ago
  How world works is neither static nor universal. There are political forces acting out of utilitirian ethics, trying to benifit the whole society - but thankfully, there are also forces fighting against it, and very successfully, at times.
vidarh 8y ago
The very point of a corporation is that it is a legal fiction that society agrees to honour. Without negotiating those terms, why should society as a whole honour it if you decide to invent new rules and apply them to your new fictional entity to shield you from liability for example? What you are suggesting does infringe on other persons freedoms in that your unilateral corporation only has meaning if you force others to act as if it exists. Put another way: If I decide I'm King of my own kingdom, and insists that as king I can dismiss any debt I incur, why should society accept my fantasy to the detriment of other members of society? If I insist that I can incorporate some new class of corporation not subject to the rules of society, I'm no different than a madman proclaiming his own fictional kingdom - it has no real existence unless I negotiate that existence and the rules governing it with society around me (one such alternative might be to simply accept one of the existing forms of business).
- golergka 8y ago
  > Without negotiating those terms, why should society as a whole honour it if you decide to invent new rules and apply them to your new fictional entity to shield you from liability for example? Because it only concerns them if they enter any agreement with this fictional entity, and they're free to choose to do or not do it. > If I decide I'm King of my own kingdom, and insists that as king I can dismiss any debt I incur, why should society accept my fantasy to the detriment of other members of society? Because people that lend you something would have to sign a contract (out of their own free will) where it clearly states that they're lending to a virtual "kingdom" of yours, where you can dismiss any debt you want. > it has no real existence unless I negotiate that existence and the rules governing it with society around me "Society" is a peculiar word. Because if you meant "people", then I agree - you'd have to negotiate it with people that you would want to sign agreements with you, as I stated above. However, if you meant government, or people that wouldn't have to enter any agreements with your virtual entity, I don't see why the hell it's their business to tell you what imaginary entities you can create.
  - vidarh 8y ago
    > Because it only concerns them if they enter any agreement with this fictional entity, and they're free to choose to do or not do it. Incorporation is a legal agreement between you and a government representing people around you that effectively acts as legal shorthand to create a basic set of rules and obligations. If you just want it to remain your own fictional entity no-one is stopping you from inventing whatever rules you want as long as it remains in your own head, and nobody are requiring you to disclose any details. But you can't incorporate and expect to be able to dictate your own terms. And the moment you enter into any kind of business under the name of your fictional, unincorporated entity, you're also entering into agreements with people on its behalf. If you do that on behalf of an entity that have no legal existence without making it explicit that said entity have no legal existence, you're harming people by tricking them into agreements where they lack legal protections they expected they'd have. And if you do make it explicit, sure, I'm sure you could find a way of doing that which would be legal, but nobody would do it as they'd have no legal recourse against a non-existent entity if it doesn't hold up its side of the bargain. Feel free to try. To put it another way: Nobody would accept entering into a contract with the Magic Kingdom (the fantasy place, not a legal entity of the theme park) unless Disney or a subsidiary is also party to the contract so they can sue Disney if the Magic Kingdom does not deliver on its obligations. > Because people that lend you something would have to sign a contract (out of their own free will) where it clearly states that they're lending to a virtual "kingdom" of yours, where you can dismiss any debt you want. They can't sign a contract with my virtual kingdom, because it has no legal existence. Any such contract would likely be void in the best case, or involve fraud on my end in the worst case. However, if they sign a contract with me, they're just routing around my delusional "kingdom", and we're back to the point that I can't demand of society to accept my new type of corporate entity - I can't invent my own shorthand, because nobody else recognises it.

jasonvorhe 8y ago

That's not how the world works, sorry to break it to you.

golergka 8y ago
How world works is neither static nor universal. There are political forces acting out of utilitirian ethics, trying to benifit the whole society - but thankfully, there are also forces fighting against it, and very successfully, at times.

vidarh 8y ago

The very point of a corporation is that it is a legal fiction that society agrees to honour. Without negotiating those terms, why should society as a whole honour it if you decide to invent new rules and apply them to your new fictional entity to shield you from liability for example? What you are suggesting does infringe on other persons freedoms in that your unilateral corporation only has meaning if you force others to act as if it exists. Put another way: If I decide I'm King of my own kingdom, and insists that as king I can dismiss any debt I incur, why should society accept my fantasy to the detriment of other members of society? If I insist that I can incorporate some new class of corporation not subject to the rules of society, I'm no different than a madman proclaiming his own fictional kingdom - it has no real existence unless I negotiate that existence and the rules governing it with society around me (one such alternative might be to simply accept one of the existing forms of business).

golergka 8y ago
> Without negotiating those terms, why should society as a whole honour it if you decide to invent new rules and apply them to your new fictional entity to shield you from liability for example? Because it only concerns them if they enter any agreement with this fictional entity, and they're free to choose to do or not do it. > If I decide I'm King of my own kingdom, and insists that as king I can dismiss any debt I incur, why should society accept my fantasy to the detriment of other members of society? Because people that lend you something would have to sign a contract (out of their own free will) where it clearly states that they're lending to a virtual "kingdom" of yours, where you can dismiss any debt you want. > it has no real existence unless I negotiate that existence and the rules governing it with society around me "Society" is a peculiar word. Because if you meant "people", then I agree - you'd have to negotiate it with people that you would want to sign agreements with you, as I stated above. However, if you meant government, or people that wouldn't have to enter any agreements with your virtual entity, I don't see why the hell it's their business to tell you what imaginary entities you can create.
- vidarh 8y ago
  > Because it only concerns them if they enter any agreement with this fictional entity, and they're free to choose to do or not do it. Incorporation is a legal agreement between you and a government representing people around you that effectively acts as legal shorthand to create a basic set of rules and obligations. If you just want it to remain your own fictional entity no-one is stopping you from inventing whatever rules you want as long as it remains in your own head, and nobody are requiring you to disclose any details. But you can't incorporate and expect to be able to dictate your own terms. And the moment you enter into any kind of business under the name of your fictional, unincorporated entity, you're also entering into agreements with people on its behalf. If you do that on behalf of an entity that have no legal existence without making it explicit that said entity have no legal existence, you're harming people by tricking them into agreements where they lack legal protections they expected they'd have. And if you do make it explicit, sure, I'm sure you could find a way of doing that which would be legal, but nobody would do it as they'd have no legal recourse against a non-existent entity if it doesn't hold up its side of the bargain. Feel free to try. To put it another way: Nobody would accept entering into a contract with the Magic Kingdom (the fantasy place, not a legal entity of the theme park) unless Disney or a subsidiary is also party to the contract so they can sue Disney if the Magic Kingdom does not deliver on its obligations. > Because people that lend you something would have to sign a contract (out of their own free will) where it clearly states that they're lending to a virtual "kingdom" of yours, where you can dismiss any debt you want. They can't sign a contract with my virtual kingdom, because it has no legal existence. Any such contract would likely be void in the best case, or involve fraud on my end in the worst case. However, if they sign a contract with me, they're just routing around my delusional "kingdom", and we're back to the point that I can't demand of society to accept my new type of corporate entity - I can't invent my own shorthand, because nobody else recognises it.