Tom Vogt writes:
>Gil Hamilton wrote:
> > The business is a representation of the owners, who are real people with
> > actual rights.
>
>yes, but a representation is just that. as I said: the existence of
>churches or icons does not prove the existence of god, and does not give
>god the right to, say, vote in elections.
>
>if I decide to give my money to a representation, that's my choice. but
>both of them are still just a piece of paper.
This church analogy you're trying to make just doesn't fit. The church
doesn't represent God, it represents its members, all of whom *are*
permitted to vote in elections and such. (As to your statement that "the
existence of churches doesn't prove the existence of God": I don't disagree
but the analogy with a business simply doesn't make sense.)
Also, I'm using "representation" in the sense of "surrogate for" or
"manifestation of", not in the sense that it is merely "a symbol for."
> > A business is created with real capital (cash and other
> > forms of value) advanced by the owners. Anything the business "owns" --
> > property, information, etc. -- is actually owned by the owners of the
> > business. Hence, any right that inheres to the owners spills over (as
>Kevin
> > put it) to the business.
>
>I disagree. the legal system puts it this way, which is exactly what I'm
>saying above. it's just that this is an ARBITRARY solution to the
>problem, and any other would be just as "valid".
You're not being clear. What "problem" is it that a business is "an
ARBITRARY solution to"? Again, a business is simply a pooling of assets by
the owners with the purpose of increasing those assets for the benefit of
the owners.
You appear to be claiming that businesses would not exist if the "legal
system" (i.e. government) didn't create them. However, in any sort of
government (or even with none), people looking to build wealth would still
wish to pool their assets with others and operate businesses for the
purposes of buying, selling and making money.
>there's a lot of other things arbitrary in our culture's dealing with
>the phenomenon of business entities. for example, while they have many
>rights of real persons (can own property) many duties do not apply (I've
>never heard of a company sent to jail (i.e. closed down for a time) or
>being subject to the death sentence (i.e. closed down permanently)
>because of crimes that would have resulted in these sentences for real
>persons).
This simply proves that (most of) society is able to see a business as
simply another face put on by individuals. So if a crime is committed, you
punish the owners (or whatever individuals are actually responsible for the
commission of the crime).
>other areas are less "outlandish", if you prefer. for example: why can
>corporations not vote? they surely are entities of the local area with
>interests in the political future.
Likewise, corporations do not vote because their owners already have a vote
and giving a corporation a vote would result in the owners having more than
one vote, and would therefore be patently unfair. Nothing terribly
difficult to understand about all this.
(For the same reason, businesses should *not* pay taxes. [Even assuming you
agree that there should *be* taxes.])
I don't deny that some aspects of governments' treatment of corporations is
arbitrary and even senseless. However, the basic idea of a business is not
an invention of government.
- GH
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
