4 ms·

This is giving governments a lot of credit. Corporations are really just a set of contracts between investors, founders, employees, etc. Sure governments help

This is giving governments a lot of credit. Corporations are really just a set of contracts between investors, founders, employees, etc. Sure governments help enforce the terms of the contract and even set some ground-rules on what is/isn't allowed but the entire thing is built on mutual trust that everyone involved will follow the agreed-upon rules. History has not been kind to nations whose governments break those rules and started nationalizing corporations. Not too long ago, North Korea was the side with the industry, railroads, hydro-elec dams, steel mills and manufacturing plants.

derefr 5y ago
My point is that the government is the one enabling contract law to exist, by making it enforceable. And so they get to say which contract terms are enforceable; and so they get to say which mutual agreements between private parties are iterated prisoners' dilemmas, and which are just ultimatum games. Securities are valuable assets for the same reason that greenbacks have value: because the state is standing there ensuring everyone's playing a fair game. If the state didn't punish counterfeiting, greenbacks would be worthless. If the state didn't punish non-dilutive duplicate share sales (i.e. selling the same whole pie to two people), securities would be worthless. As such, the state is creating the worth of those things, from nothing. Your effort into a corporation is additive, but the government's pre-invested effort into building the framework on which corporations rest is multiplicative, with the multiplier having started off, before that effort, at 0. Neither fiat money nor securities work in a lawless world. The government—that is, the People—get all the credit for making those things possible. Should they thus not get the reward? (Commodities do work in a lawless world, but not through tokens representing them. You'd have to bring those 10K bushels of wheat along with you if you want any credibility, which is pretty inefficient.) Let me put it this way: if we were starting with a form of socialism where corporations exist, and have founders and executives and boards of directors, but no shareholders, with the government instead earning all corporate profits (which it then spends on things like UBI); and then someone proposed a capitalist class that would earn some of those profits instead, taking them directly out of the UBI budget... would that proposal be justifiable through any particular argument to natural rights/freedoms? There might be a practical argument, in terms of a profit motive incentivizing entrepreneurship and investment, leading to a "rising tide"; but would there be an ethical argument in favor? > History has not been kind to nations whose governments break those rules and started nationalizing corporations. Not too long ago, North Korea was the side with the industry, railroads, hydro-elec dams, steel mills and manufacturing plants. North Korea isn't a particularly good example; their economic stall is a result of trade embargoes more than anything. (They're actually doing as well as could be expected, given that they're an isolated, non-globalized economy whose only trading partners are much larger globalized economies [China, Russia] who don't need anything NK could provide.) Meanwhile, China's own mostly-nationalized corporations do pretty well for themselves. Hell, even Canada has tons of Crown Corporations, and everyone here is begging our federal government to nationalize the cellular infrastructure (and then lease it out fairly) because it'd be much better than the current oligopoly situation we're in.
- aeternum 5y ago
  I agree the contributions of many of the participants is multiplicative, but I don't agree that government is the most important. Corporations can't exist without some entity enforcing contracts and agreements. That is sometimes the government but it is often also 3rd party arbitrators. In any case though government provides the ultimate backstop. Most corporations also wouldn't exist without the strong will of a dedicated founder to drive the shared belief and vision of what the corporation could become even when the barriers seemed insurmountable. Similarly, most corporations wouldn't exist without those early investors willing to stake a portion of their wealth or fund's credibility on those founders. To a lesser extent, early employees also play a significant role. They take on risk and give up lucrative salaries at larger companies in exchange for more impact on a product and the potential of a big payout down the road. If any of these entities/groups are not present, the corporation fails. All are needed, not just government.
  - johnrgrace 5y ago
    Look at history, 150 years ago to be allowed to form a corporation you needed a legislature to pass an act after they believed that your enterprise was in the public good. Being able to form a limited liability company is a right granted by law and subject to limits. Not that people pay attention today but if you read your states laws there are limits to what corporation can do, be named, etc.
    - germandiago 5y ago
      the limit should be not causing damage to others. Regulations just put a higher barrier to enterpreneurs. It is not a good idea to regulate all the time when in fact every regulation could effectively be a wall.
      - bantunes 5y ago
        Why the Non-Aggression Principle is useless as a moral guideline http://dbzer0.com/blog/why-the-non-aggression-principle-is-useless-as-a-moral-guideline/ http://dbzer0.com/blog/why-the-non-aggression-principle-is-u...
beambot 5y ago
Curious. My local government nationalized water, gas, electricity, waste removal, roads, bridges, trains, etc. Some of these were even for-profit private companies at one time or another. Seems common in the US... Clearly it's a spectrum. Property rights are certainly the purview of governments to set & adjudicate the rules within their jurisdiction, as granted by their unique powers (nominally) conferred by the people.
grapist420 5y ago
yeah and computers are “just” interactions between electromagnetism and matter. This slides a lot > History has not been kind to nations whose governments break those rules and started nationalizing corporations Yeah but history has been kind to companies who mold laws for and heavily intervene in them

derefr 5y ago

My point is that the government is the one enabling contract law to exist, by making it enforceable. And so they get to say which contract terms are enforceable; and so they get to say which mutual agreements between private parties are iterated prisoners' dilemmas, and which are just ultimatum games. Securities are valuable assets for the same reason that greenbacks have value: because the state is standing there ensuring everyone's playing a fair game. If the state didn't punish counterfeiting, greenbacks would be worthless. If the state didn't punish non-dilutive duplicate share sales (i.e. selling the same whole pie to two people), securities would be worthless. As such, the state is creating the worth of those things, from nothing. Your effort into a corporation is additive, but the government's pre-invested effort into building the framework on which corporations rest is multiplicative, with the multiplier having started off, before that effort, at 0. Neither fiat money nor securities work in a lawless world. The government—that is, the People—get all the credit for making those things possible. Should they thus not get the reward? (Commodities do work in a lawless world, but not through tokens representing them. You'd have to bring those 10K bushels of wheat along with you if you want any credibility, which is pretty inefficient.) Let me put it this way: if we were starting with a form of socialism where corporations exist, and have founders and executives and boards of directors, but no shareholders, with the government instead earning all corporate profits (which it then spends on things like UBI); and then someone proposed a capitalist class that would earn some of those profits instead, taking them directly out of the UBI budget... would that proposal be justifiable through any particular argument to natural rights/freedoms? There might be a practical argument, in terms of a profit motive incentivizing entrepreneurship and investment, leading to a "rising tide"; but would there be an ethical argument in favor? > History has not been kind to nations whose governments break those rules and started nationalizing corporations. Not too long ago, North Korea was the side with the industry, railroads, hydro-elec dams, steel mills and manufacturing plants. North Korea isn't a particularly good example; their economic stall is a result of trade embargoes more than anything. (They're actually doing as well as could be expected, given that they're an isolated, non-globalized economy whose only trading partners are much larger globalized economies [China, Russia] who don't need anything NK could provide.) Meanwhile, China's own mostly-nationalized corporations do pretty well for themselves. Hell, even Canada has tons of Crown Corporations, and everyone here is begging our federal government to nationalize the cellular infrastructure (and then lease it out fairly) because it'd be much better than the current oligopoly situation we're in.

aeternum 5y ago
I agree the contributions of many of the participants is multiplicative, but I don't agree that government is the most important. Corporations can't exist without some entity enforcing contracts and agreements. That is sometimes the government but it is often also 3rd party arbitrators. In any case though government provides the ultimate backstop. Most corporations also wouldn't exist without the strong will of a dedicated founder to drive the shared belief and vision of what the corporation could become even when the barriers seemed insurmountable. Similarly, most corporations wouldn't exist without those early investors willing to stake a portion of their wealth or fund's credibility on those founders. To a lesser extent, early employees also play a significant role. They take on risk and give up lucrative salaries at larger companies in exchange for more impact on a product and the potential of a big payout down the road. If any of these entities/groups are not present, the corporation fails. All are needed, not just government.
- johnrgrace 5y ago
  Look at history, 150 years ago to be allowed to form a corporation you needed a legislature to pass an act after they believed that your enterprise was in the public good. Being able to form a limited liability company is a right granted by law and subject to limits. Not that people pay attention today but if you read your states laws there are limits to what corporation can do, be named, etc.
  - germandiago 5y ago
    the limit should be not causing damage to others. Regulations just put a higher barrier to enterpreneurs. It is not a good idea to regulate all the time when in fact every regulation could effectively be a wall.
    - bantunes 5y ago
      Why the Non-Aggression Principle is useless as a moral guideline http://dbzer0.com/blog/why-the-non-aggression-principle-is-useless-as-a-moral-guideline/ http://dbzer0.com/blog/why-the-non-aggression-principle-is-u...

beambot 5y ago

Curious. My local government nationalized water, gas, electricity, waste removal, roads, bridges, trains, etc. Some of these were even for-profit private companies at one time or another. Seems common in the US... Clearly it's a spectrum. Property rights are certainly the purview of governments to set & adjudicate the rules within their jurisdiction, as granted by their unique powers (nominally) conferred by the people.

grapist420 5y ago

yeah and computers are “just” interactions between electromagnetism and matter. This slides a lot > History has not been kind to nations whose governments break those rules and started nationalizing corporations Yeah but history has been kind to companies who mold laws for and heavily intervene in them