This chart is actually quite instructive, despite the original creator's best intentions.
If the government creates this artificial "person" known as the corporation, it is of course ultimately responsible for its conduct. The alternative is to have this lumbering financial golem with zero accountability to anyone save its shareholders, and they have been shielded from liability already. This chart makes the case that the government has made a hash of overseeing the conduct of its creation.
So it seems obvious (to me anyway) what you are suggesting is that we do away with the corporation.
Your brilliance is astonishing, sir! And here I was beginning to think the Libertarians were a bunch of crackpots.
One could replace corporations with "people" or "Warren Buffett" or "Pelosi's Brother" or "Celebrity Chef Tim Love", and come up with a very similar list of possible answers for the blank.
The gubmint pretty much takes from you, and gives it to people that they like better than you. Groups, individuals, corporations, whoever.
Except Warren Buffet/Pelosi's Brother/etc are not created by the government.
So, if the Gummit is evil, and it creates corporations...the next logical step is to stop it from creating corporations. You've voiced your opinion that there are lots of other things the Gummit shouldn't be doing. Just add this to the list.
I'm a little rusty on my Constitutional law - can you direct me to the section whereby the Government has been granted the authority to create artificial persons?
Dr. Ralph, There are plenty of libertarians who do oppose corporations, precisely for the reasons you've outlined. Here's a starting point for the libertarian case against corporations, if you're interested. Hope you're doing well...
"So, if the Gummit is evil, and it creates corporations...the next logical step is to stop it from creating corporations."
Heaven forfend! The good Dr is reduced to offering the straw man ploy in an otherwise valid presentation. The government unquestionably engages in evil actions such as theft and murder by taxation for unconstitutional wars with their concomitant "collateral damage" but also directs efforts toward the rescuing of kittens and puppies. To quote Professor Rozeff: "Reality is more complex, of course, than the simple [good v evil] division. All of us mix good and evil in one package. Those of us who look good and may do good much of the time do evil things, and sometimes our intentions and thoughts are far from pure and good. Those of us who look bad or evil not only are capable of doing good but often do good." Or try following this "logic" found on the labels of many items such as brass plumbing valves offered for sale in the state of Georgia: "This product contains substances known by the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm." As the great philosopher Forrest Gump would assert: "Evil is as evil does".
ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ - I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm not sure I caught the thrust of your last remark, other than you took exception to my comment. Are we in agreement that governments - federal all the way down to local - are capable of much stupidity, as well as occasional wisdom? Believe me, I had little good to say about the federal government from around 2000 - 2008, a time when my esteemed debating partner, the WS, was uncharacteristically silent.
Dr Ralph, My apologies for being unclear. The chief objection to your post was the use you made of the straw man fallacy. Then again, it may have been that you were making use of hyperbole and I was being rather obtuse in overlooking the possibility. As for the preponderantly "stupid" actions of the various levels of government versus the "wise" ones we appear to agree. Having functioned inside one of the lower levels of leviathan, I could regale you with considerable entertainment on the subject; however the "stupid" incidents were generally the result of frailties in human nature writ larger than necessary (see here for an example).
It has been my experience over many years that collectivism is generally inimical to the greater benefit of the race. On that I fear we disagree.
10 comments:
This chart is actually quite instructive, despite the original creator's best intentions.
If the government creates this artificial "person" known as the corporation, it is of course ultimately responsible for its conduct. The alternative is to have this lumbering financial golem with zero accountability to anyone save its shareholders, and they have been shielded from liability already. This chart makes the case that the government has made a hash of overseeing the conduct of its creation.
So it seems obvious (to me anyway) what you are suggesting is that we do away with the corporation.
Your brilliance is astonishing, sir! And here I was beginning to think the Libertarians were a bunch of crackpots.
Au Contrere, Mon Frere !!
One could replace corporations with "people" or "Warren Buffett" or "Pelosi's Brother" or "Celebrity Chef Tim Love", and come up with a very similar list of possible answers for the blank.
The gubmint pretty much takes from you, and gives it to people that they like better than you. Groups, individuals, corporations, whoever.
And that's why they shouldn't be trusted.
Except Warren Buffet/Pelosi's Brother/etc are not created by the government.
So, if the Gummit is evil, and it creates corporations...the next logical step is to stop it from creating corporations. You've voiced your opinion that there are lots of other things the Gummit shouldn't be doing. Just add this to the list.
I'm a little rusty on my Constitutional law - can you direct me to the section whereby the Government has been granted the authority to create artificial persons?
Dr. Ralph,
There are plenty of libertarians who do oppose corporations, precisely for the reasons you've outlined. Here's a starting point for the libertarian case against corporations, if you're interested. Hope you're doing well...
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11/10/roderick-long/corporations-versus-the-market-or-whip-conflation-now/
Stephen - thanks for the link. I scanned it; looks like an interesting read.
"So, if the Gummit is evil, and it creates corporations...the next logical step is to stop it from creating corporations."
Heaven forfend! The good Dr is reduced to offering the straw man ploy in an otherwise valid presentation. The government unquestionably engages in evil actions such as theft and murder by taxation for unconstitutional wars with their concomitant "collateral damage" but also directs efforts toward the rescuing of kittens and puppies.
To quote Professor Rozeff: "Reality is more complex, of course, than the simple [good v evil] division. All of us mix good and evil in one package. Those of us who look good and may do good much of the time do evil things, and sometimes our intentions and thoughts are far from pure and good. Those of us who look bad or evil not only are capable of doing good but often do good."
Or try following this "logic" found on the labels of many items such as brass plumbing valves offered for sale in the state of Georgia: "This product contains substances known by the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm."
As the great philosopher Forrest Gump would assert: "Evil is as evil does".
ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ - I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm not sure I caught the thrust of your last remark, other than you took exception to my comment. Are we in agreement that governments - federal all the way down to local - are capable of much stupidity, as well as occasional wisdom? Believe me, I had little good to say about the federal government from around 2000 - 2008, a time when my esteemed debating partner, the WS, was uncharacteristically silent.
Dr Ralph, My apologies for being unclear. The chief objection to your post was the use you made of the straw man fallacy. Then again, it may have been that you were making use of hyperbole and I was being rather obtuse in overlooking the possibility. As for the preponderantly "stupid" actions of the various levels of government versus the "wise" ones we appear to agree. Having functioned inside one of the lower levels of leviathan, I could regale you with considerable entertainment on the subject; however the "stupid" incidents were generally the result of frailties in human nature writ larger than necessary (see here for an example).
It has been my experience over many years that collectivism is generally inimical to the greater benefit of the race. On that I fear we disagree.
ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ - believe it or not, we probably don't disagree as much as you'd think.
Post a Comment