Laelia wrote:
Recognizing reality doesn't mean I support the current system, I just don't think removing all regulation of business will solve the problems that corporatism poses. There are certainly many harmful or useless regulations and removing such regulations would benefit society, but it is rather simplistic to conclude from this observation that all regulations should be abolished.
Most excellent; thank you for your clarifications. Similarly, I find it "rather simplistic to conclude" that "libertarians cannot be taken seriously" in light of the actions of certain corporations (whose actions and anti-competitive practices, again, are not supported by libertarians proper). My sole reason for entering into this otherwise fine discussion was to point out that such broad characterizations do little justice to either side.
Laelia wrote:
Your earlier argument was that corporations couldn't exist in a libertarian state because they wouldn't be able to legally incorporate.
This is only partially correct. The heart of my argument, to be clear, is that corporations would not serve the role of
governing the people in a proper libertarian society -- unless, of course, you choose to re-define "libertarianism" or "governing the people" in some strange manner (which, after having participated in the discussion thus far, I would not be surprised to see). This is true reasons both analytic and practical: Firstly, because the anti-competitive features associated with corporate status in the contemporary legal (and, in the case, most relevant) sense of the term would be eschewed by any body which endeavours to embrace competition (i.e., free-market libertarianism proper). Secondly, while it is true that large business will continue to form, they would not be protected from failure by the state via government-granted monopolies, the aforementioned "bail-outs," and the like. Both points considered, it is my opinion that the poster to which I originally responded is either deeply misinformed concerning the philosophical precepts of the libertarian ideology (and again, to be clear,
libertarianism does not favour coroporatism) or, as you imply, may be misusing the term "corporation" in some overtly broad fashion (in which case there is little use carrying the discussion further). I suspect that our disagreement is thus: I conceive of corporations as being anti-competitive by nature (and thus suspect, for the reasons already outlined, that they could not thrive in a free-market proper -- at least not thrive in the totalitarian sense implied above) whereas you believe that free-markets proper are simply not possible in the first place and are using this supposition (as far as I can tell) to argue in favour of governmental regulation in the marketplace. Nevertheless, I am still hoping that you would agree that a
freer market imparts more benefits to its participants than one which is less free.
Laelia wrote:
Take, for example,
Golis Telecom of Somalia. Somalia has no functional government and no corporate law, yet it has powerful telecommunication companies which function as corporations in every sense except the legal one.
May I ask what dangers the Golis Telecom is posing to the well-being of its customers or to society at-large? I'm afraid I do not see your point here.
Laelia wrote:
Nobody has yet explained what the relevance of that legal registration is, in the context we are discussing.
As implied above, legal registration grants the organization limited liability in the eyes of the state, effectively allowing the participants of that organization to be freed of the personal responsibilities associated with day-to-day business activities. As you might imagine, legalizing such practices leads to great social and environmental horrors.
All the best,
Baron Wilhelm von Grimsby IV
--
