On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 09:45:40PM -0300, juan wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:43:12 +0300
> Georgi Guninski <gunin...@guninski.com> wrote:
> > Anyway, I meant that in a free market (FM), you will still have
> > corporations (possibly under more politically correct term like FM
> > corporation).
>
> 'corporations' are a legal fiction created by the state, so no.
When > 1 humans associate for the purposes of shared economic activity/
incentive in what we may as well term "business", it is in their
interests to face the world as a named entity.
I think this is Georgi's point - in a FM we are free to associate with
one another as we so choose. So in Georgi's case here,
FM corporation ~= business ~= economic activity association
And of course, where there is no government, there shall be no
"corporations" as created by governments. Any group calling themselves a
"corporation" would have a meaning different from the current meaning,
thus "FM corporation".
This leads to perhaps an interesting question:
Today there are many businesses, companies, corporations etc. which
entities represent their owners (possibly in the form of share holders)
and controllers (possibly just the owners, and/ or part owners, or the
directors/ managers employed to control certains aspects of the
business).
Share holders/ owners can include other entities - trusts, hedge funds,
pension funds etc.
These entity owners have actual interests - economic interests, and any
other contractable/ name-able interest which might be written, but may
not be written, including for example:
- simple economic interests - share dividends, perceived future share
price for future sale etc
- maturity of an estate, vesting from the estate holder to the named
beneficiaries in a will
- power and control structures as manifested by the CIA, FBI, NSA,
North American BISMIC (banking intelligence surveillance/ spying
military industrial control complex)
Contracts (explicit/ implied) - entities - interests (or rather
"beneficiaries").
(Of course some interests would not be considered "lawful" or acceptable
to an average direct democracy/ anarchic voter (assuming that particular
interest were up for a vote) for example.)
THE QUESTION:
The question I think always shall be, is how to transition to an
anarchic society, in consideration of existing interests. I.e. how to
peacefully transition existing entities/ structure/ interests into an
anarchistic/ truly free market reality.
I am implying evolution. Revolution - we see how well that went after
the fall of the Tzar, to the various CIA instigated revolutionary coups
from Lybia to Syria, Ukraine to Yugoslavia, none of which resulted in
nor were intended to result in an actualisation of an anarchistic
society.
The problem with revolution, is that it is ideological extremists who
give enough of a shit to pick up a gun and start shooting (for example)
police, citizens and government officials, and the outcome is that the
ideological extremists end up holding the seats of power and institute
something -other- than anarchism. Such extremists as our world's history
have seen, tend to sociopathy, rather than the benevolent, side of
dictatorship.
We must always remember it is never the arm chair pundit ("oh I wish our
democracy elected representatives actually represented us") crowd who
will change the world.
So historically, revolutions seem to be more a devolution than an
evolution of the status quo. If you have counter examples, please
highlight them now.
So it is that I hold far greater hope for a better/ anarchistic/ direct
democracy type of future, via the pathway of evolution, and not
revolution.
And so it is also that we owe it to our future generations to consider
pathways to peaceful transition of existing interests, into that better
future.
