More condescending remarks I see.
Voluntary associations that would not exist without Government Charters and licensing...... A legal contract between shareholders without the Government involvement would be a Trust. There you go making assumptions again. This is the problem with most modern Libertarians, they ignore everything Mises said. Even Jefferson was against Corporations as they exist.
They argued against cronyism, mercantilism, corporatism, whatever you want to call it - not against the idea of corporations themselves. The State should not have the power to play favorites in the economy.
The single most distinguishing characteristic of a corporation is limited liability. When a corporation fails, shareholders lose their investments, but they are not liable to pay back the banks for any debts the corporation took on. Banks agree to lend money to corporations with this understanding, and it is a calculated risk that they take. Limited liability encourages investment, and discourages debt. This is a double benefit!
Corporations also typically set up an organizational structure quite unlike a trust. They're a distinct sort of entity.
So Corporations do not Lobby the Government for preferential treatment with regards to powers of the State? Did you simply close your eye's when GE was let off on it's tax fouls last year? Corporations do not Grovel, if that were true the President would not have massive donations from the financial sector to back his bid for re-election. Romney would not be also garnering the same backing. In reality it's the other way around, the Individuals that operate the State beg for donations for re-election with the promise of preferential treatment.
The corporations created the legal framework that they are working in, why do you think they donate to candidates?
You didn't even read what I wrote. I said corporations are amoral, and will use government to their advantage when they can. But without a willing government, corporations cannot use force.
That's called grovelling. Pat my back, I'll pat yours, except only one party actually has *power*. That's the government, who has guns and tanks and the mob. Governments don't need corporations and governments can destroy the corporations.
There are no moral arguments here, it's purely Ethical. Morality is a flawed concept based upon Individual ideas of good or evil. Individual morality is flawed in that it can not be applied to everyone, so the argument you are making as a pseudo Libertarian would not apply to everyone if based on morality.
Ethics is the study of morality, so you're spouting gibberish again. Good and evil are not 'flawed concepts.' If you know your values, you can determine rationally and objectively whether or not something is going to be good or evil. Politics is directly derived from ethics in philosophy. If you're an ethical nihilist and you don't believe in good or evil, that drives your politics just as much as someone who's an absolutist.
Corporations would take over the role, if they were still standing after such a collapse. As it stands now the Wars are started and fought at the behest of the Corporations. Unless you really think the Federal Government truly had a motive to invade Iraq. Oddly enough the only people that made out on that deal were the Corporations that struck it big on no bid contracts. Go figure, it was also the same Corporations that donated and put Bush into office.
It's silly for anti-Statists to support an organization that operates in the same manner as the States they so despise. I would prefer no Government, rather some unrealistic utopia that would never happen.
Like I said, corporations will use the gun of the government if it is available to be used. Their activities will reflect the legal and moral framework of the state. The state will use them when it suits their purpose, and crush them when that suits their purpose. I only wish more CEO's understood the double-edged nature of government.
I'm not arguing for a utopia. I'm pointing out the simple logic of clearly delineating the role of government to one of a passive protector of property rights.
