At 09:14 AM 3/9/03 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: > I just realized this morning that corporations can't exiest in an anarchy, >they are whole a fiction of the state.
In the sense of a govt-recognized, protected entity, granted. But not in terms of voluntary associations. And, since corporations are just a method >for thieves and criminals to evade the reprecussions of their crimes, Actually its pretty hard to do things like make a car by yourself. One of the many voluntary groups you might be part of is a car-making association. > People will hold the employees of the megacorps personally responsible, as >they should be, for the crimes of the group. The new car you bought turns out to >be a lemon? Grab a few of the employees and make them cough up the money. Don't >like the pollution coming out of that smokestack, start shooting employees until >they clean it up. But one of the benefits of joining the Fnord Motor Uncorporation is the excellent FMU private police force. A real benefit in an anarchy. > If corporations go away, people would form contractual partnerships to build >cars, whatever, and act much more responsible. I suppose if medical malpractice insurance went away (it would have to be by fiat & force; insurance providers fill a fundamental niche), there'd be more careful doctors. But also many fewer. The calculus of personal risks vs. benefits. (A strategy also employed by the christian-taliban doctor-snipers.) Unless you explicitly ban (again, using violence) voluntary associations of people, they *will* pool resources to buy stuff they can't individually afford. Like a fab. So corps usually have more assets to lose than its members. And smart corps tie their employees (esp officers) futures to their own. So there is feedback motivating responsible behavior by corps. Certainly removing the State's corporate protections would increase the feedback. But it would probably also stifle productive associations. Why risk my personal wealth because I contributed to an association that sold a car that brought a lawsuit? I wonder if this trade off is stated in the law (cf patents in the constition, which explicitly states the trade off)? But besides this pragmatic, the corp concept seems to let me define (limit) my involvement with an association (with a defined purpose) of others. Thus it seems a refinement of contract law --which I hold to be a fundamental. Although patent and copyright are established for practical reasons, there (to me) is a right to profit from your IP; and similarly, although a corp may be a practical tool, it seems "right" for people to be able to limit their commitment to an association. There's also something called piercing the corp veil, if folks screw up royally.
