All corporations are created by the state. Corporations only exist because of the laws that create them. Without that special legal status it’s pretty much impossible to grow to the sizes most corporations do.
You got that exactly backwards. You can’t “surrender” something that you have no immediate control over (because if you had, it would be personal property. But no one wants you to surrender your toothbrush).
Private property (and capitalism) needs state enforcement to exist.
All of those are things that you personally use, i.e. personal property. Contrast that for example to a house that someone doesn’t use and extracts rent from.
Capitalists made a good job in confusing these two concepts in every day use, similar to how they like to confuse capitalism with market-economy, or try to appropriate terms like libertarianism, which originally meant freedom from economic coercion, not freedom to economic coercion. It’s a cheap trick to make gullible people support capitalist interests.
No, you don’t have to turn over anything, why do you keep coming up with that strawman?
But if someone else would come and ask if they can use it since evidently you don’t, there is not much you could do about it other that asking them to voluntarily reimburse you for your costs ; and not a rent that over time pays your costs back many times over. The reason why the latter is possible in our society, is because the state (via the police) will violently evict people from houses they use but aren’t their private property. Hence for private property to exist there needs to be violent enforcement and only the state makes it legal to do so.
It’s an edge case scenario, but I wouldn’t call it a strawman.
What about in the case where my father dies. What happens to his house? Do I have to sell it? What if no one wants to buy it right away? What is the defining difference between personal property and private property? Because right now, it just seems like the difference is when you, or some arbitrary body of consensus, decides that someone else owns enough stuff.
Personally, that just feels like semantics to me. They’re a structured group of people that exists to generate profit. Whether they technically meet the definition of a corporation doesn’t change what they’d be like under anarcho-capitalism.
Yes, shockingly, the definitions of words are semantics!
And to literally ask if something meets a definition then try to dismiss the response as semantic while offering your own incorrect definition is fantastically silly.
Gangs are structured groups of people that exist to generate profit illegally.
Unincorporated businesses are structured groups of people that exist to generate profit legally.
Incorporated businesses are structured groups of people that exist to generate profit legally with the special legal status of personhood.
Part of the point @[email protected] was making is that corporations are nearly identical to other organizations, even illegal ones, except they have a legal status that lets them do far more damage.
I’m not sure I fully agree… some corporate entities are large enough to be self reinforcing. In practice they may end up recreating the state, but I don’t think it’s necessary impossible for large corporate structures to emerge in a stateless society. Of course, the nature of the stateless society is a very important variable here. A society that is hostile to accumulated wealth and social domination would make this much more difficult.
A corporation is a legal construct. While it’s theoretically possible for a single business to grow very large, most of the exploitation and legal cover provided by the simple act of incorporation becomes nearly impossible.
Plus without a state to push down competition, it becomes a lot harder to monopolize a market. Ideally there wouldn’t even be a market to monopolize, but that’s a different discussion altogether.
Incorporation is just a formality required by law. Corporations could still exist through internal cooperation without that, as long as there is no outside force that disrupts them.
In the absence of the state, a corporate structure can pursue its own coercive methods to maintain market dominance. And of course, some markets are naturally prone to monopoly due to the barriers to competition.
Anything the state can do, a large enough corporation can do as well. So this logic just doesn’t add up.
But without a state above them to reinforce laws the corporation would have to enforce them. So they don’t have to follow their own laws, and thus become something else. More like a warband of kingdom or junta.
You could argue at some point it wouldn’t be one anymore but what I’m saying is that nothing in this process of gaining power requires a state.
In a functional and lasting anarchist society, there would need to be norms and systems in place to stop this kind of authoritarianism from cropping up.
A royal charter from King Charles II incorporated “The Governor and Company of Adventurers of England, trading into Hudson’s Bay” on 2 May 1670.[6] The charter granted the company a monopoly over the region drained by all rivers and streams flowing into Hudson Bay in northern parts of present-day Canada.
And the HBC did nothing to induce the state to act in such a way? The King just decided, hey, I like these HBC folks, I’m going to give them an entire nation, because I’m swell.
They had some prominent backers as the article explains, but regardless of that the fact remains that HBC was created by a state with the clear goal to establish a another client state through it (hence the monopoly rights). Britain’s rivalries with France probably also played a role as France was the dominant colonial power in that area at the time.
All corporations are created by the state. Corporations only exist because of the laws that create them. Without that special legal status it’s pretty much impossible to grow to the sizes most corporations do.
The same is true for private-property and capitalism in general, which is why “anarcho-capitalism” is so absurd.
I wholeheartedly agree!
Private property is abolished now guys, surrender it immediately but like at your option because there’s no government or police to compel you 🤡
You got that exactly backwards. You can’t “surrender” something that you have no immediate control over (because if you had, it would be personal property. But no one wants you to surrender your toothbrush).
Private property (and capitalism) needs state enforcement to exist.
So, uh, who do I turn over the deed to my house and title for my car to?
How am I getting to work on Monday? And where am I going to sleep?
All of those are things that you personally use, i.e. personal property. Contrast that for example to a house that someone doesn’t use and extracts rent from.
Capitalists made a good job in confusing these two concepts in every day use, similar to how they like to confuse capitalism with market-economy, or try to appropriate terms like libertarianism, which originally meant freedom from economic coercion, not freedom to economic coercion. It’s a cheap trick to make gullible people support capitalist interests.
Gotcha.
So if I converted my standalone garage into a MiL suite, would I have to turn it over?
No, you don’t have to turn over anything, why do you keep coming up with that strawman?
But if someone else would come and ask if they can use it since evidently you don’t, there is not much you could do about it other that asking them to voluntarily reimburse you for your costs ; and not a rent that over time pays your costs back many times over. The reason why the latter is possible in our society, is because the state (via the police) will violently evict people from houses they use but aren’t their private property. Hence for private property to exist there needs to be violent enforcement and only the state makes it legal to do so.
It’s an edge case scenario, but I wouldn’t call it a strawman.
What about in the case where my father dies. What happens to his house? Do I have to sell it? What if no one wants to buy it right away? What is the defining difference between personal property and private property? Because right now, it just seems like the difference is when you, or some arbitrary body of consensus, decides that someone else owns enough stuff.
Are large street gangs (Crips, etc.) not an example of a huge corporation operating outside the benefits of the law?
A corporation by definition benefits from the law.
Corporations are businesses that have been given the the legal rights of a person. As if they had a body. Or corpus, if you will.
Personally, that just feels like semantics to me. They’re a structured group of people that exists to generate profit. Whether they technically meet the definition of a corporation doesn’t change what they’d be like under anarcho-capitalism.
Yes, shockingly, the definitions of words are semantics!
And to literally ask if something meets a definition then try to dismiss the response as semantic while offering your own incorrect definition is fantastically silly.
Gangs are structured groups of people that exist to generate profit illegally.
Unincorporated businesses are structured groups of people that exist to generate profit legally.
Incorporated businesses are structured groups of people that exist to generate profit legally with the special legal status of personhood.
Part of the point @[email protected] was making is that corporations are nearly identical to other organizations, even illegal ones, except they have a legal status that lets them do far more damage.
No. Not all organizations are corporations.
Same with pirates. They have an internal structure and share profit, but are very illegal.
I’m not sure I fully agree… some corporate entities are large enough to be self reinforcing. In practice they may end up recreating the state, but I don’t think it’s necessary impossible for large corporate structures to emerge in a stateless society. Of course, the nature of the stateless society is a very important variable here. A society that is hostile to accumulated wealth and social domination would make this much more difficult.
A corporation is a legal construct. While it’s theoretically possible for a single business to grow very large, most of the exploitation and legal cover provided by the simple act of incorporation becomes nearly impossible.
Plus without a state to push down competition, it becomes a lot harder to monopolize a market. Ideally there wouldn’t even be a market to monopolize, but that’s a different discussion altogether.
Incorporation is just a formality required by law. Corporations could still exist through internal cooperation without that, as long as there is no outside force that disrupts them.
In the absence of the state, a corporate structure can pursue its own coercive methods to maintain market dominance. And of course, some markets are naturally prone to monopoly due to the barriers to competition.
Anything the state can do, a large enough corporation can do as well. So this logic just doesn’t add up.
But without a state above them to reinforce laws the corporation would have to enforce them. So they don’t have to follow their own laws, and thus become something else. More like a warband of kingdom or junta.
What do you think is the quality that would make such an organization still be a “corporation”?
You could argue at some point it wouldn’t be one anymore but what I’m saying is that nothing in this process of gaining power requires a state.
In a functional and lasting anarchist society, there would need to be norms and systems in place to stop this kind of authoritarianism from cropping up.
Sometimes states are created by corporations. Eg, Canada
Except that they were literally given a monopoly and funding by the British monarchy:
And the HBC did nothing to induce the state to act in such a way? The King just decided, hey, I like these HBC folks, I’m going to give them an entire nation, because I’m swell.
They had some prominent backers as the article explains, but regardless of that the fact remains that HBC was created by a state with the clear goal to establish a another client state through it (hence the monopoly rights). Britain’s rivalries with France probably also played a role as France was the dominant colonial power in that area at the time.