3 ms·
Geographical distribution and ownership distribution are not the same thing. There’s no legal system on this planet that recognizes the notion of a company tha
by keiferski 3y ago
Geographical distribution and ownership distribution are not the same thing.
There’s no legal system on this planet that recognizes the notion of a company that’s 70% owned by someone but doesn’t have a physical address.
Yes, and so consider the possibility that some people see this as a problem to be solved and not an unchanging fact of reality.
Again, there is a huge rich new field of discussion about this stuff [1] and so I find the lack of curiosity by the author to be very uninteresting. You don’t have to agree with these ideas but to ignore them entirely is intellectually flawed, especially when it’s the supposed reason for these actions in the first place.
1. See the Network State stuff. https://www.youtube.com/live/x-GfuIFkB_Y?si=t1r96klba69rwTtx https://www.youtube.com/live/x-GfuIFkB_Y?si=t1r96klba69rwTtx
- pavlov 3y agoA corporation that's able to do business globally but is not domiciled anywhere is analogous to a person who can travel anywhere but doesn't have any citizenship or a passport. The latter sounds obviously like a fantasy — it's simply not how any of this works. What makes anyone think the former is feasible?
- anonymous_sorry 3y agoSo do those people want an individual to be able to incorporate, declare their corporation distributed and then not have to obey any country's laws?
- NovemberWhiskey 3y agoYes, and so consider the possibility that some people see this as a problem to be solved and not an unchanging fact of reality. Sure but there are a significant number of people who feel the same way about government generally, or the ban on perpetual motion machines.