3 ms·

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 with

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...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - germandiago 5y ago
      I just went quickly through the article. The article treats this principle basically as ambiguous. So this principle could be not perfectly defined for some, or disputable, according to the article. However, you miss the point. Saying that this principle is just not strictly defined (according to the article) does not make it a reason to put it to the trash directly. You have to compare to the status quo. For me what the article supports (implicitly) behind this reasoning would be that the status quo (coaction and violence by governors) is better: hey, just proceed with coaction because NAP is not perfect? I think there is a lot of consensus on things that are wrong that we would all accept. Consider it a subset of NAP. The bigger the subset, the better for everyone. In fact, there is a very clear principle, at least in my opinion that can define things way less ambiguously: it exists the negative or natural law and positive law. For me, basically, negative rights should be inviolable and positive rights are not rights as themselves in my opinion: none of us will ever have infinite capacity or power for an arbitrary action, and in doing so you will violate the negative rights of others: I want to date this girl (but she does not), I want to go to Harvard (but I need to spoil others and disregard their academic CVs and skip the line), I want to have 10000 usd per month (but my employer built the business and won't pay that)... no, those are not rights. Those are things we earn by ourselves or figure out how to do.
      - aeternum 5y ago
        How does this principle work when two sides have differing opinions on what constitutes the greater aggression (IE abortion where a woman's rights over her body are up against the question of when human life begins) Vaccines.. at what level of disease severity should the government forcibly inject the entire populace with a vaccine to ensure that no one can aggress on another by infecting them (on purpose or accidentally). If one jumbo jet passenger has a severe peanut allergy and other opens a bag of peanuts, is it an act of aggression?
        germandiago 5y ago

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...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - germandiago 5y ago
    I just went quickly through the article. The article treats this principle basically as ambiguous. So this principle could be not perfectly defined for some, or disputable, according to the article. However, you miss the point. Saying that this principle is just not strictly defined (according to the article) does not make it a reason to put it to the trash directly. You have to compare to the status quo. For me what the article supports (implicitly) behind this reasoning would be that the status quo (coaction and violence by governors) is better: hey, just proceed with coaction because NAP is not perfect? I think there is a lot of consensus on things that are wrong that we would all accept. Consider it a subset of NAP. The bigger the subset, the better for everyone. In fact, there is a very clear principle, at least in my opinion that can define things way less ambiguously: it exists the negative or natural law and positive law. For me, basically, negative rights should be inviolable and positive rights are not rights as themselves in my opinion: none of us will ever have infinite capacity or power for an arbitrary action, and in doing so you will violate the negative rights of others: I want to date this girl (but she does not), I want to go to Harvard (but I need to spoil others and disregard their academic CVs and skip the line), I want to have 10000 usd per month (but my employer built the business and won't pay that)... no, those are not rights. Those are things we earn by ourselves or figure out how to do.
    - aeternum 5y ago
      How does this principle work when two sides have differing opinions on what constitutes the greater aggression (IE abortion where a woman's rights over her body are up against the question of when human life begins) Vaccines.. at what level of disease severity should the government forcibly inject the entire populace with a vaccine to ensure that no one can aggress on another by infecting them (on purpose or accidentally). If one jumbo jet passenger has a severe peanut allergy and other opens a bag of peanuts, is it an act of aggression?
      - germandiago 5y ago