Paul's stance on corporates?

[Mini-Me]

As a side note, I wanted to mention a few things that haven't been discussed:

• Even without federal regulations on business, states and localities will still be free to pursue whatever regulations they want. Sure, libertarians might consider doing so to be unwise, but they can still do it. A lot of people act like, without federal regulations, there won't be any - however, that's not the case. It's much better when regulations on business are done in smaller jurisdictions, because then there's competition between different states and/or localities for businesses. The invisible hand of the market would lead people and companies to move to areas with the optimal level of regulation. However, when everything is dictated by a monolithic federal government, no experimentation or competition of policies can exist...and their policies are almost always bad and inefficient (at best) or completely corrupt (at worst...which is more likely).
• In the absence of corrupt government agencies like the FDA that decide (through coercive force) what food and drug items can go on the market, cheaper and more efficient free market certification agencies would pop up in their place. Under the FDA, pharma companies can get in bed with them and get their [sometimes dangerous] products in the market while forcefully prohibiting [sometimes safer] alternatives from surfacing. Of course, since these products are FDA-certified, the pharma companies are pretty much indemnified from any responsibility...and since the FDA is the only show in town and is funded by the taxpayers, they're never held accountable or forced to do a good job, either. Government is "benevolent" and "out to serve the people - for free," except for the simple and inevitable fact that the world revolves around money and power. Under a free market, we'd have food and drug safety organizations popping up all over the place, and food and drug companies would pay them for their certification and "seal of approval." If one agency proved to be incompetent, consumers would not bother looking for their seal, but if an agency proved to be quite reliable, consumers would look for their certification label on all food and drug items. The market would tend to favor the most reliable and cheapest certification organization...this would work a lot like kosher certification, except it would be a much larger industry and certification would be on just about every safe product, since a lot more people care about safe food than kosher food.
• As far as monopolies go...as others have stated, "free market" monopolies are usually quite rare. Almost all coercive monopolies or cartels were either directly created by government (i.e. your cable company probably got a 15-year monopoly contract from your local government because it wined and dined the politicians better than the other cable company) or exist because of other government invervention in the market that prevents competition from emerging, like regulations and/or corporate welfare. However, one thing that some people don't recognize is that "intellectual property rights," i.e. copyrights, trademarks, and patents, are also "unnatural" government constructs. While such government grants of exclusivity have their place in promoting the progress of the arts and sciences, they also hold an inherent danger of enabling some companies to become coercive monopolies or near-monopolies (especially if the laws are overly draconian). While this is worthy of its own discussion, Microsoft is a good example here. However, in the "perfect world," there's a much more subtle and elegant solution to having the government forcefully break such a company up: Instead, just revoke their exclusive copyrights, patents, and non-essential trademarks.
• As far as corporate size: It's interesting that you ask. In our current economy, the market does seem to favor larger and larger conglomerates, doesn't it? There's a growing trend towards consolidation. However, this is not a natural market phenomenon; in a free market without corporate welfare and oppressive, competition-hindering regulations, smaller companies would be much better equipped to compete, and the optimal size for companies would not always be "as big as possible."

Now, as far as your question about corporate personhood: I'm not sure how Ron Paul himself feels on it...I do know that he likes the idea of creating a new type of corporation particularly well-suited to employee-owned corporations. Because he has focused his efforts on limiting the coercive power of the federal government (which in practice may really be enough to solve all of our problems), he probably hasn't given the issue all too much attention.

However, I can at least give my own opinion: You're right on the money, and we should end the idea of corporate personhood. The problem with corporate personhood is that it's a government-created construct, and as such, the "special rules" of corporations allow it to circumvent liabilities and responsibilities in ways that would not otherwise be possible with regular contracts. You do not need to create a corporation to have a joint-stock company (where many people can privately or publicly trade stock) - these kind of companies can easily be made by simple contracts between individuals...in such a contract, a person's liability would be limited to their stake in the enterprise. However, the "corporate veil" is unfair to society as a whole in that it allows stakeholders to limit their financial and moral obligations beyond their stake - it allows all blame and liability to be placed on the shoulders of a fictional "person," the corporation.

While I have no problem with a government construct called a "corporation" that might make joint-stock contracts easy and streamlined (so the joint venture, the corporation, can write and cash checks and operate in many ways as a corporation does today), the whole "corporate veil" that limits accountability has to go. I'm hazy on exactly how such things are conducted right now, but I think if a "corporation" does something illegal, all officers of the corporation participating in such an action (and/or any stakeholders aware of and consenting to such action) should be liable for criminal trial. It is unfair to society for certain privileged humans to shrug their criminal liability onto a fictional entity that cannot possibly serve jailtime (the corporation itself)...

 

[therealjjj77]

You have to make the car move somehow. An electric car that goes 200 miles on one charge even weighs over 2,500 pounds, so I'm not buying that Groucho Marx joke.

I know we are getting off subject but check out this vehicle:

www.loremo.com

-It's a diesel

-It carries 4 people

-Under 1320 lbs.

-Gets about 157 mpg!!!

-Has a range of over 600 miles on one tank

-And is said to be very safe

 

[therealjjj77]

Just one more loose end....

Should corporates retain personhood?

Some people says that the problem with treating it as a legal person is that it's still amoral, and the blame is diffused, so it's easier for corporates to do some evil things while workers think they're "doing their jobs", CEO rationalize it as serving the interests of stakeholders, while stakeholders trust the Board of Director to look into the matters and so on.

I don't know really. I am leaning against it lately.

There are two aspects, you hit on the criminal aspect but there is also the financial aspect(if it goes under it doesn't affect the stockholders other stocks, finances, or businesses). I believe it would be better for society as a whole if corporate stockholders were unprotected by the government from the criminal aspect. However, I haven't broken down why it would be beneficial for society for the government not protect the financial aspect though I am sure that would also not be prudent.

 

[kill the banks]

I know we are getting off subject but check out this vehicle:

www.loremo.com

-It's a diesel

-It carries 4 people

-Under 1320 lbs.

-Gets about 157 mpg!!!

-Has a range of over 600 miles on one tank

-And is said to be very safe

check out this one [ & some history ]

at the turn of
the last century many homes were supplied with compressed air lines installed
and maintained by companies such as Chicago Air. This compressed air was used
to run the cars that our grandparents once drove to and from work or on
out-of-town trips up to several hundred miles and at highway speeds on a single
charge!

Standard Oil and Edison Electric bought into Chicago Air but not to invest in
the way of the future but to destroy their competition by shutting down all of
Chicago Air's suppliers and creating a monopoly that exists to this day.

This monopoly may be coming to an end - and not a moment too soon! The once very cheap and plentiful gasoline that allowed us to continue to drive cars after the
collapse of Chicago Air has now economically enslaved all mankind and risks
destroying the whole world through pollution and wars.

This is why the news story below is exciting.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Air_car_runs_on_compressed_air_0104.html

[ ps : what about competition that eliminates beneficial invention like above to maintain their own industry ie oil ? & remember the electric car ]

 

[Mini-Me]

I don't know really. I am leaning against it lately.

There are two aspects, you hit on the criminal aspect but there is also the financial aspect(if it goes under it doesn't affect the stockholders other stocks, finances, or businesses). I believe it would be better for society as a whole if corporate stockholders were unprotected by the government from the criminal aspect. However, I haven't broken down why it would be beneficial for society for the government not protect the financial aspect though I am sure that would also not be prudent.

Here's why the government should not protect shareholders from financial obligations and debts (such as when the company goes bankrupt and owes tons of money, possibly as the result of a lawsuit):
Under today's system, if a company becomes insolvent, its top shareholders don't have to worry about the debts the corporation incurred, and they get away scotch-free. This kind of protection essentially subsidizes bad behavior. If investors knew that they could be burned (proportional to their stake in the company) by investing in companies with questionable business practices that could get them sued or worse, they'd be a lot more careful not to invest in those companies, and the top stakeholders would be a lot less likely to allow those kind of shenanigans to occur on their watch. The end result: Less shenanigans would occur, less businesses would go insolvent, and less creditors and/or victims would be left uncompensated.

Of course, there's a catch here, too: Most corporations have secrets and strategies and such that only the top shareholders (and executives) are really privy to. In other words, they might know if the company is tanking or doing something that could get them in trouble, but ordinary investors like you and me would not. In that case, it's not really fair that ordinary investors who are "not in the know" should be punished - however, this is not for the government to protect even them against. Instead, a better solution is this: Investors would learn to invest in only companies whose corporate contracts either,

a.) Force only the top shareholders (ones privy to all information) to take all of the responsibility for debts, proportionately. This would make it safe for small shareholders. Or,
b.) Make all investors privy to all information (probably not a good idea if you don't want your competitor buying a single share and knowing all of your secrets!). Or,
c.) A combination of the two approaches.
​

 

[therealjjj77]

[ ps : what about competition that eliminates beneficial invention like above to maintain their own industry ie oil ? & remember the electric car ]

I'm not a big fan of patents for this reason and others.

This reminds me a story when Tyndale produced an english translation for the Bible in the 1500s and there was a catholic cardinal(who didn't want the layfolk understanding the scriptures) that came up with this great plan to just buy up all the Tyndale Bibles. But the problem was this not only gave Tyndale the money to buy more printing presses to print them faster, but it also gave him more incentive to print more. And so that catholic cardinal ended up helping Tyndale to spread one of the first successful english translations of the Bible.

That would be the extent of what these big companies could do if there were no more patent laws.

 

[Banana]

Mini-Me,

Sounds good but need one more thing: if we have something in place to avoid the situation of stakeholders bailing out, leaving the last one holding the whole bag, then we should be good to go.

I understand that there has been past instances of corporates setting up some poor saps as a scapegoat just as they are about to go under.

 

[kill the banks]

I'm not a big fan of patents for this reason and others.

This reminds me a story when Tyndale produced an english translation for the Bible in the 1500s and there was a catholic cardinal(who didn't want the layfolk understanding the scriptures) that came up with this great plan to just buy up all the Tyndale Bibles. But the problem was this not only gave Tyndale the money to buy more printing presses to print them faster, but it also gave him more incentive to print more. And so that catholic cardinal ended up helping Tyndale to spread one of the first successful english translations of the Bible.

That would be the extent of what these big companies could do if there were no more patent laws.

interesting

kill the banks

 

[Mini-Me]

Mini-Me,

Sounds good but need one more thing: if we have something in place to avoid the situation of stakeholders bailing out, leaving the last one holding the whole bag, then we should be good to go.

I understand that there has been past instances of corporates setting up some poor saps as a scapegoat just as they are about to go under.

In my opinion, this could be dealt with via contracts...
In other words, large investors buying out from these "ship-jumping" shareholders should know what they're getting into - and by that, I mean they need to be smart enough to require all necessary information in advance as to whether or not investing in the company is a good decision. If such necessary information is withheld (information that would prove the corporation is about to tank, for instance), that would be a breach of contract on the part of the ship-jumping seller, and they'd be held completely liable.

If this approach was used, a standard template contract to ensure this would probably develop over time...

In terms of small investors who wouldn't be privy to corporate secrets at all, well...hopefully I covered that well enough in my last post (Which, by the way, I just edited a moment ago to make things a bit more clear)

 

[Gilby]

The shareholders can be protected through insurance for liability issues. Of course the cost of insurance would represent the expected risk, or lack of information to assess the risk.

As for going bankrupt and defaulting on their debt, that would naturally be protected under the terms of the loans which would allow that, with the interest rates measuring the risk. In other words, the banks accept the risk of defaults and charge accordingly.

 

[Mini-Me]

The shareholders can be protected through insurance for liability issues. Of course the cost of insurance would represent the expected risk, or lack of information to assess the risk.

As for going bankrupt and defaulting on their debt, that would naturally be protected under the terms of the loans which would allow that, with the interest rates measuring the risk. In other words, the banks accept the risk of defaults and charge accordingly.

Good point about liability insurance! I didn't even think of that one...that's another solution the market would probably develop.

 

[Zarxrax]

I am against corporate personhood and allowing corporations to have special privileges, but there is an aspect of this all that causes me some concern. Corporations are chartered by the states, not by the federal government. So then, is this not an issue that should be addressed at the state level? More than 50% of corporations are chartered in the state of Delaware.

 

[Banana]

Yeah, and corporations could be transnational, which murks the water.

Personally, I believe that if a corporate wants to do business in a state, they must register with the state and obey the laws within the state. No special privileges just because it's based in another state.

 

[danberkeley]

Can anybody explain about how privatizing roads, wiring, and pipes would be better for us?"

Because it wouldnt take 6 months of paper work, 30 workers and a million dollars to fill a pot hole.

I'm still stuck with the imagery of redundant networks which leads to inefficiency and wasteful spending.

sure. there may be redudant networks, but as long as the firms running the netwroks are okay with it and making a profit, they wouldnt mind it. eventually, firms would merge if they wanted to.

Look at cellular services. Nobody can expect a consistent service because one network is more rooted in one area while weaker in other area. If all companies had the equal access to all of the network, everyone would have a better service, no?

maybe. but look at local restaruants. maybe those restaurants would be more efficient if the merged. but what if they dont want to merge because they want to stay indepedent and leave the restaturant to their children. you cant just say "oh. you're inefficient, although you're making a profit and feeding the kids, therefore, we will force you to merge with another firm." it's a matter of liberty and the freedom to do want you want to with your property.

I envision something like this as the best solution: Make those a public property but essentially privatize the expansion; when a company adds a tower, it is "sold to government" with a interest as an incentive for companies to keep expanding while providing best service without having to build their own network.

sold to the government? where's the government going to get the money for it?

Another issue I trip over on is when some democrats tell me that if there were no regulations, business would kill off people. They would sell cheap food that would be bad for people, and point to tobacco industry as an example of dishonest business who care about profit first, customers second (mabye) and therefore we need regulations for those dishonest business... Any good rebuttal to that?

up until about a hundred years ago. most americans lived on farms. that meant they grew and raised their own food and sold or saved the surplus. why isnt this possible anymore? plant an apple tree in you backyard, eat the apples you grow, and trade the surplus to you neighbor.

no one has the right to force you to use cigarettes or any other drugs. if someone does, then that is a violation of civil liberties. as for peer pressure, parents have the right to tell their kids that they should get new friends, if hey're pressured to use drugs.

many democrats and the government, for that matter, assume that individuals are too imcompetent to make safe decisions for themselves.

 

[Banana]

Interesting.

Now when I think about it, I can see how an existing network serve as a disincentive to build more roads; if a company serves the public well more, competition would have no reason to go in that market and look somewhere else. But what about gerrymandering, creating virtual monopoly?

Now, suppose we totally privatized roads. Does that mean we will have several tollbooths raising up to maintain the roads? Wouldn't it be annoying to pay toll four or more times on your daily commute?

 

[LibertiORDeth]

I know we are getting off subject but check out this vehicle:

www.loremo.com

-It's a diesel

-It carries 4 people

-Under 1320 lbs.

-Gets about 157 mpg!!!

-Has a range of over 600 miles on one tank

-And is said to be very safe

I'm sold!

 

[LibertiORDeth]

Interesting.

Now when I think about it, I can see how an existing network serve as a disincentive to build more roads; if a company serves the public well more, competition would have no reason to go in that market and look somewhere else. But what about gerrymandering, creating virtual monopoly?

Now, suppose we totally privatized roads. Does that mean we will have several tollbooths raising up to maintain the roads? Wouldn't it be annoying to pay toll four or more times on your daily commute?

Those are my thoughts also...

 

[danberkeley]

I wonder if anyone have idea where Paul stands WRT corporates?

What are "corporates"? Did you mean corporations?

Personally, I perceive big corporates as scourges on liberties and the root of all bad kind of lobbying (mind, I'm not saying lobbying itself is bad, but it's corporates that gives lobbying the bad name).

Corporations may a have a lot more power to lobby than do ordinary citizens, but it is the politicians that sell out. We need to restore our government with honest and ethical people.

I imagine Ron Paul is all for laissez-faire market, and would want to remove subsidies, welfare (he has written so in articles on official websites). That's great, but what about monopolies? What about accountability (or lack thereof)?

Monopolies? The only monopolies I know of are created by the government. I.e. public utilites, parks, money counterfeiting, drugging (FDA), education (D. of Ed.), et cetera. Also, it's virtualy impossible to have a monopoly because as long a someone can make a buck providing a good or a service, there will always the competition. If a firm raises their prices above equilibrium, then another firm will enter the market and now you have no more monopoly. It's as simple as that. The problem lies with government-created barriers to entry. I could go deeper into this.

Accountability? My answer to that is Contract Law. If a party breaches the contract, then the government has the ability to enforce the contract, remedy, et cetera. Then there's property rights. During the industrial revolution, many companies were able to pollute the environment and their neighbor's environment because the government did not respect private property. In other words, the big polluter across the street of you should/does not have the right to pollute your air and water.

Should corporate be re-defined so it's not a legal person? The trouble with such concept is that it's essentially without morals and because it's a group of people, the blame is diffused.

Corporations are not legal persons. They cannot vote in elections (as far as I know).

Underlings doesn't blow whistles because they're obeying orders.

What do you expect? Public schools teach our kids to obey their superiers and the government, but ironically, not their parents. How about you start your own company and employ your own kids?

Stakeholders are inclined to look the other way when they're raking in money. Board of Directors has no idea what's going on. CEO says he's doing the bidding of stakeholders. So on and so on.

There is nothing wrong with that per se. But what are you getting at? Are you talking about when the executives are doing things that are illegal and unethical?

 

[danberkeley]

Another thing I'd like to know-

Should we have a cap or limitation on corporate size?

For example, I truly do believe the old legislation outlawing owning more than one media outlet (e.g. owning a TV station and radio station at same time) was good to have until it was took down and we had all that crazy mergers and are left with six gigantic companies that's totally out of touch with people.

Also, if we were to make corporate nonperson, would it make the bad "big business" go away?

What's wrong with "Big Corporations" per se? Corporations, just like you and I, don't have the right to violate the civil liberties of others. But as far as lobbying is concerned, it is the politicians who sell out our rights to these corporations. We need to restore our government with honest and ethical people. But we can not do this as long as we continue to vote for politicians who promise to take care of us from craddle to grave.

 

[Zarxrax]

What's wrong with "Big Corporations" per se? Corporations, just like you and I, don't have the right to violate the civil liberties of others. But as far as lobbying is concerned, it is the politicians who sell out our rights to these corporations. We need to restore our government with honest and ethical people. But we can not do this as long as we continue to vote for politicians who promise to take care of us from craddle to grave.

As I think it has already been pointed out (but maybe not), corporations are a creation of the government. The corporation is given special privileges that are not given to others. If I go and start my own business as a sole proprietorship, or maybe a partnership, then I have to be very careful. If my business does something to cause harm to another person, then I am personally liable and can be sued for every penny that I have. If someone starts up a corporation though, they are given all sorts of special privileges. If my corporation causes harm to someone, then the worst that can happen is that my corporation will go bankrupt. My personal finances are completely secure.
This is just one example of privileges given to corporations... there are many more.