Corporations=Collectivism.....

[hypnagogue]

Aren't corporations inevitable, unless the State is completely communist?

Not so. It takes special laws to enable owners to create a barrier of responsibility between their business and themselves.

 

[Kludge]

So long as it's voluntary, and no aggression results of it - it is moral. Only aggression is immoral.

You are not entitled to live beyond your natural means. If you starve because you didn't have money for food, or the grocers hated you enough not to sell you food, that's your problem. No one is entitled to charity.

 

[scholarpreneur]

Awesome post!!!

That would be a start in the right direction towards reigning these financial collectivists in.....

Yeah. Looks like the site has some misguided liberal leanings, but they got the facts right at least.

 

[josephadel_3]

Not so. It takes special laws to enable owners to create a barrier of responsibility between their business and themselves.

Could you explain this please? What is a barrier of responsibility between a business and a business owner?

 

[buffalokid777]

That's essentially an oxymoron. A corporation is a voluntary association. No one is given special privileges that any other person could not have.

That statement alone is incorrect, the CEO and board have superior privledges than the stockholders....the controlling interest in a corporation is roughly 10% on average....so you have the 10% with controlling interest decide what the other 90% does......

And finally because of superior capital thru incorporation, the corporation has superior advantages over individuals thru the combined capital....

take for example monsanto.......

Monsanto makes genetically modified seeds......

When a farmer buys seed from monsanto.....the monsanto seed farmer usually cross polinates the crop of the neighboring farmers land that grows the same crop......

Monsanto then brings charges against the neighboring farmer because the seed the neighbor farm produces now has Monsanto's genetic trademarked patent in their seed even though their crop was cross polinated from a different farmer who bought monsanto seed.....

Monsanto uses the full capital of Monsanto to sue the farmer who DIDN'T BUY MONSANTO SEED BUT NOW HAS MONSANTO SEED GENECTICS IN THEIR CROP DUE TO THE CROSS POLLINATION OF THE FARM WHO BOUGHT SEED FROM MONSANTO.....

The farmer who never bought seed from Monsanto is now FORCED to spend legal fees to defend themselves against Monsanto from their seed contaminianting their non monsanto field....

Monsanto uses these gestappo like finacial collectivist efforts to make sure they will have a monoply in agriculture.

Do you see the problem?

Do you see the injustice?

Do you understand this is NOT free market capitalism?

 

[hypnagogue]

I couldn't think of a particularly insightful way to say it so...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

 

[hypnagogue]

That statement alone is incorrect, the CEO and board have superior privledges than the stockholders....the controlling interest in a corporation is roughly 10% on average....so you have the 10% with controlling interest decide what the other 90% does......

And the President has more power than your average voter. Does that make the constitutional government a collectivist system? The fact of the matter is anyone can become a CEO same as anyone can become President. Actually, any American can become president, so it seems our Constitutional government is more collectivist even than corporations. Really, I suggest you think hard about what makes something collectivist. I'll give you a hint - it has nothing to do with working together.

 

[scholarpreneur]

Could you explain this please? What is a barrier of responsibility between a business and a business owner?

Generally, the corporation gets to behave as an "individual" in certain cases.

If you and a few people own a corporation and your corporation does something "bad" to someone else, that person can only sue the corporate entity, not you and your friends.

 

[buffalokid777]

Yeah I have to agree. Voluntary is the key word.

I guess I am an individualist, but that doesn't mean I am opposed to working together with a group of people who share the same goals as me. That is very general definition of what a corporation is (or used to be anyway!)

I don't have a problem with people working together for a greater good, but when the seek to use the collectivist corporate capital (like I sated above with monsanto) to kill the individual organic farmer whose seed has been corrupted by someone else so everyone will use monsanto seed....that is the problem....

Monsanto seeks to use their collectivist capital to squelch out everyone who refuses their genetically modified seed, so they can have a monoply on seed....

Even with a most cursorary search you cold literally funds hundreds of cases where they have done this....followed by many many thousands if you really research it.....

When corporations seek to stamp out individuals through collective capital....that is NOT free market capitalism.....

 

[buffalokid777]

And the President has more power than your average voter. Does that make the constitutional government a collectivist system? The fact of the matter is anyone can become a CEO same as anyone can become President. Actually, any American can become president, so it seems our Constitutional government is more collectivist even than corporations. Really, I suggest you think hard about what makes something collectivist. I'll give you a hint - it has nothing to do with working together.

I think my point is when a company like Monsanto seeks to use their capital to stamp out individual farmers who don't want to use their seed , so that those who are left will use Monsanto seed...that is financial collectivism using their superior capital to stamp out individualism and imposing a monopoly through their financial collectivism....

 

[hypnagogue]

That's not collectivism. An individual who owned Monsanto could to the same exact thing. Or ten individuals in a partnership.

That is an example of dishonest and unjust business practices. I see no connection to collectivism.

 

[scholarpreneur]

I don't have a problem with people working together for a greater good, but when the seek to use the collectivist corporate capital (like I sated above with monsanto) to kill the individual organic farmer whose seed has been corrupted by someone else so everyone will use monsanto seed....that is the problem....

Monsanto seeks to use their collectivist capital to squelch out everyone who refuses their genetically modified seed, so they can have a monoply on seed....

Even with a most cursorary search you cold literally funds hundreds of cases they have this....followed by many many thousands if you really research it.....

When corporations seek to stamp out individuals through collective capital....that is NOT free market capitalism.....

Well whether it is collectivism or not is beyond me. I'm not well versed enough in political philosophy to know either way.

I don't think it matters though. That's just a label. I think our real question is: Are the problems that arise from multinational corporations ultimately the result of the pooling of capital or over centralized government? I would argue its more the latter than the former.

Mises was as free market as you can get and he didn't have a problem with corporations.

 

[scholarpreneur]

That's not collectivism. An individual who owned Monsanto could to the same exact thing. Or ten individuals in a partnership.

Off topic but I like your Avatar.

I wasn't born yet when the old one was around, but I love the new series.

 

[buffalokid777]

Mises was as free market as you can get and he didn't have a problem with corporations.

That's an interesting question you pose with Mises not having a problem with corporations......

But let those of us who don't know ask....did mises base his views on the founding fathers intent or what arose after him?

Your previous post.....you mentioned an excellent article at...

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html

here are some excerpts that really make the unbiased who wish to see our republic survive that point out the problems....

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

How many times have we seen corporations break laws but instead of being disbanded only given a few meager fines and returning to rape the public and their shareholders?

* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

This is huge.....this is the first part of corporations overnrunning our repubic.....we NEED TO ENFORCE THIS TO HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC AGAIN.....

* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

When was the last time this was enforced? Certainly not since Monsanto came to exist......

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

This is the biggest of all an until we force corporations to abide by this....the republic is GONE!!!

INDIVIDUALS are the ones allowed to petition congress...but when corporations are given this right.....individuals need a few hundred thousand dollars to petition congress in the form of a lobbyist.....this is a travesty against a constitutional republic and needs to be enforced for corporations to exist in a constitutional republic.....corporations have superior capital than individuals and by allowing corporations to make political contributions as well as spending money to influence lawmaking is the single most thing that will make our constitutional republic exctinct........

there are many other great things in this article you listed and I THANK YOU for posting.....I couldn't have written a better article detailing why corporations can kill a constitutional republic......PLEASE CHECK IT OUT....GREAT ARTICLE scholarpreneur...I commend you for bringing it to our attention.....It is like every problem I have with corporations in a constitutional republic in summary......

I couldn't have said it better....

But the ability of corporations to give campaign contributions and to spend money to influence law.....

If we could just adopt that corporations CAN'T do that.....MOST of the problems I have with corporations could go away......that alone is the biggest problem of all......

 

[clouds]

wasn't it the supreme court that decided that corporations could be treated in law as one person? I'm pretty sure that decision is what screwed up a lot of stuff.

 

[scooter]

This is a stupid argument. Sure, there are some bad corporations that probably don't deserve to exist, but the idea that corporations are morally wrong is just stupid. Corporations only exist because the legal framework says they can. They rise up from the free market, generally because they can produce much better than your individual producer.

Sure, sometimes it stamps out some small competition just because they have more capital, but that's life in the free market. When a huge corporation abuses their power too much, eventually the markets turn on them.

What you are arguing for is socialism. Let every man have an equal say, no groups allowed because that might create too tough of competition.

The free markets can be a rough place when you've got good businessmen. There's is no such thing as a utopia, so go find something more constructive to worry about like an overbearing government. Complaining about the power of large corporations won't get you anywhere. The only complaint you can have is in the case where the government is in bed with a corporation and creates unjust competition.

Get out of here with your Marxist ideas.

 

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Voluntary collectivism. There are other ways to get ahead in life that are totally individualistic.

 

[danberkeley]

Not so. It takes special laws to enable owners to create a barrier of responsibility between their business and themselves.

That's not necessarily true. A borrower and creditor could form a contract where, if the borrower defaults, the creditor can go after only the borrower's business assets. Our problem is that laws define and standardize some contracts and the courts are inconsistent interpreting laws and enforcing contracts. However, if by "special rules" you mean contract law, then yes, it does take "special laws".

 

[rockandrollsouls]

This is what makes me mad. Buffalokid has NO idea what he is talking about, yet he still continues to insist upon unsupported opinion. The reason some of the corrupt corporations (a small percentage of the many thousands might I mind you) get away with things is because of a corrupt, collectivist government. So please, shutup when you don't know what you are talking about, buffalo. Your argument will have some validity when you take a few economics classes.

"This is a stupid argument. Sure, there are some bad corporations that probably don't deserve to exist, but the idea that corporations are morally wrong is just stupid. Corporations only exist because the legal framework says they can. They rise up from the free market, generally because they can produce much better than your individual producer." EXACTLY! You could take the name "corporation" away, and they would still form. It's just nature for the free market...it's part of growth.

So here's a clever response to your catchy thread title, buffalo. Corporations=Collectivism? Buffalokid=Moron.

 

[danberkeley]

That statement alone is incorrect, the CEO and board have superior privledges than the stockholders....

what are "superior privledges". anyway, stockholders can fire the CEO and board members.

the controlling interest in a corporation is roughly 10% on average....so you have the 10% with controlling interest decide what the other 90% does......

thats not necessarily true. it totally depends on the the corporation's articles of incorporation and any relevant state law.

And finally because of superior capital thru incorporation, the corporation has superior advantages over individuals thru the combined capital....

what is "superior capital"?

take for example monsanto.......

Monsanto makes genetically modified seeds......

that sounds more like a problem with trademark laws, the courts, and the government et al, not corporations per se.