What Is Anarchy??

[TheBrutalTruth]

I don't know how to put it simplier for you, but I'll try. Within the discipline of economics, in dealing with the history of economic thought, the term 'modern corporation' is generally used to denote from when they were recognized as juridicial persons on. Take a junior level (300) economics course on the development/history of economic theory, and you'll certainly learn that. The course is taught at virtually every public institution.

As far as the fictional existence of corporations separate from their owners, that's not a new idea either.

http://delbus.benabraham.com/

12lf Century - reference to them being legally separate from their owners, or a persona ficta (fictional person/entity)

Of course, you're referring to Modern Business Corporations, which still means that my argument about the Plymouth Bay and London Companies, and the English East India Company still hold weight.

Modern Corporations are not the abusive, domineering, tyrannical monsters that Socialists, and Anarcho-Socialists/Syndicalists attempt to make them out to be, especially when compared to the extreme end of the spectrum.


And this still had nothing to do with whether or not corporations would exist in an anarchist society. The short of it is that they would, but they might not be called corporations.

It is entirely possible that Joint Stock Companies and Privately Held Corporations would still be formed, because they separate the share holders from being vulnerable to being liable for debts a corporation owes, and thus allow for a reduction in risk when it comes to investing in business ventures.

An owner in a company (separate from a corporation) is vulnerable to being told that they must contribute more capital if they expect the corporation to continue providing whatever good or service it is providing. A corporation just separates that, and the legal separation of a corporation from its owners serves to protect all the owners from the actions of another owner that would otherwise lead to them all getting wiped out if the owner that committed the wrong was able to force the corporation to pay for their legal defense, and for any punitive damages.

The Legal Fiction of a corporation actually serves to protect shareholders more than it protects corporations. It is irrational to punish more than just the criminal for their actions.

Leftists claims against corporations ultimately do not hold any water.


Case in point, with out the separation of a corporation from its owners if the owner was caught using drugs then it would be possible for the corporation to also be brought in on drug-related charges.

Which doesn't make any sense, and is totally absurd.

With out the separation of a corporation from its owners/employees an employee could rape some one and the corporation would be on the hook to defend them from their own actions, which means that all the shareholders and employees would be punished.

The legal separation of a corporation from its owners is the only way that co-operatives of any size could be formed, because it allows for the legal separation of corporate resources from personal resources, and provides legal requirements to keep those two resource pools separate from each other.

 

[fdd2blk]

what you looking for your internet date for support??? Having sex with moms and talking about it is two different things... you two like to talk alot dont you?? Been a long time since you got laid eh??? Its ok, even dorks like yourselves get laid from time to time. And I can make all the homosexual jokes i want.... as long as its not derogertory toward them.... Just the rude "person's" i'm talking to. You seriously are rediculous. Its sad that you both are as lame as you are. I'm done with this thread, thanks for ruining the anarchism thread. I'm going to go vomit now. what do you think fdd?? is this ok fdd? fdd? oh no??? fdd??? what a joke.

wow, you sure are some anarchist. you just ran away crying. funny stuff. thank you.

 

[Dr. Greenhorn]

I'm gonna fire up the grumpy weed. Anybody want some? LOL

 

[tipsgnob]

wow, you sure are some anarchist. you just ran away crying. funny stuff. thank you.

man crush....

 

[Loftiest]

As far as the fictional existence of corporations separate from their owners, that's not a new idea either.

http://delbus.benabraham.com/

12lf Century - reference to them being legally separate from their owners, or a persona ficta (fictional person/entity)

Of course, you're referring to Modern Business Corporations, which still means that my argument about the Plymouth Bay and London Companies, and the English East India Company still hold weight.

Modern Corporations are not the abusive, domineering, tyrannical monsters that Socialists, and Anarcho-Socialists/Syndicalists attempt to make them out to be, especially when compared to the extreme end of the spectrum.


And this still had nothing to do with whether or not corporations would exist in an anarchist society. The short of it is that they would, but they might not be called corporations.

It is entirely possible that Joint Stock Companies and Privately Held Corporations would still be formed, because they separate the share holders from being vulnerable to being liable for debts a corporation owes, and thus allow for a reduction in risk when it comes to investing in business ventures.

An owner in a company (separate from a corporation) is vulnerable to being told that they must contribute more capital if they expect the corporation to continue providing whatever good or service it is providing. A corporation just separates that, and the legal separation of a corporation from its owners serves to protect all the owners from the actions of another owner that would otherwise lead to them all getting wiped out if the owner that committed the wrong was able to force the corporation to pay for their legal defense, and for any punitive damages.

The Legal Fiction of a corporation actually serves to protect shareholders more than it protects corporations. It is irrational to punish more than just the criminal for their actions.

Leftists claims against corporations ultimately do not hold any water.


Case in point, with out the separation of a corporation from its owners if the owner was caught using drugs then it would be possible for the corporation to also be brought in on drug-related charges.

Which doesn't make any sense, and is totally absurd.

With out the separation of a corporation from its owners/employees an employee could rape some one and the corporation would be on the hook to defend them from their own actions, which means that all the shareholders and employees would be punished.

The legal separation of a corporation from its owners is the only way that co-operatives of any size could be formed, because it allows for the legal separation of corporate resources from personal resources, and provides legal requirements to keep those two resource pools separate from each other.

I think you're arguing with yourself now and still capitalizing words that shouldn't be. Words such as socialist, corporation, privately held corporation, joint stock company, and legal fiction shouldn't be capitalized. Are you copying and pasting them? More importantly, what point are you trying to get at? Are you trying to convince me that libertarian-socialists are wrongheaded?

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

I think you're arguing with yourself now and still capitalizing words that shouldn't be. Words such as socialist, corporation, privately held corporation, joint stock company, and legal fiction shouldn't be capitalized. Are you copying and pasting them? More importantly, what point are you trying to get at? Are you trying to convince me that libertarian-socialists are wrongheaded?

No, I'm informing you that you don't know what you're talking about and it shows through your lack of references, even ones that are suitable as nothing more than portals to more references such as Wikipedia.

Your statement about Modern Corporations being the first to have the existence of a legal fiction and being dated back to the 19th century is incorrect.

I think that my last post shows that the idea that a corporation exists separate from its owner(s) dates back to at least the 12lf century, if not slightly earlier, as before an idea gets mentioned in specific it has to be mentioned amongst a group in general.

 

[Hayduke]

High brow stuff today you econ and poli-sci majors...over my head.

if you really want to live without, easy access to food, electricity, AC, having to walk everywhere, for kids their 360's ps3's, oh and that lovely computer you use. then fine you go ahead and go to...

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh! don't advertise it dude...paradise waits

.....maybe some of us are smoking what dj short calls "grumpy weed" LOL

Mexican pot is bad for you. ¡Lo siento!, porque es verdad.

say everything continues like normal how would you solve the problem of externalities without government, surely markets can't fix them, they are cases of market failure. species could go extinc, public goods would be ruined... but i still think that where there are large profits and no law it would become a very uncompetitive market and violent, look at drug markets, no law, (artificially) high profits, and violence

First are externalities things like fire and police?

With the government(s) we have now:

Species are going extinct faster than they can be named...there went another...In this country the oil & gas, mining & mineral and public lands ranchers are in court fighting for the right to exterminate threatened and endangered species at will. ONLY because of grass roots donations do a few groups like Earth Justice manage to put up a legal defense for these species as the aforementioned are powerful enough to have turned the bureaucracy portion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife into an absolute joke, ignoring the 20-30 years of hard work done by the science end (the real science... Biology)

I am not sure what you mean by public goods...but if you mean things that the public values like roads and bridges and lakes and forests...The taxes have been taken and diverted while bridges are falling. The natural forest is gone in all but a very few places...for now.

In the U.S., The National Forests and the Forest Service, are under the Dept of Agriculture....they are farms. Shouldn't the nations forest, if deemed worth no more than toilet paper, and harvested periodically...shouldn't the profits go back to the people, or at least the government...or maybe just free TP? No that would be silly...of course trees are worth more than TP...right?

Well as it is, the forest service manages the field of trees (not really a forest) with good solid forestry and fire control, so large political contributing timber companies can reap the profits, all of the other villains are at work here also and have their sights set on National Parks and Wilderness areas not f'd by Jorge Shrub.

 

[tipsgnob]

 

[Dr. Greenhorn]

LMAO! I like how you show up tips hahaha

 

[Loftiest]

No, I'm informing you that you don't know what you're talking about and it shows through your lack of references, even ones that are suitable as nothing more than portals to more references such as Wikipedia.

Your statement about Modern Corporations being the first to have the existence of a legal fiction and being dated back to the 19th century is incorrect.

I think that my last post shows that the idea that a corporation exists separate from its owner(s) dates back to at least the 12lf century, if not slightly earlier, as before an idea gets mentioned in specific it has to be mentioned amongst a group in general.

So from a post that said this: 'The OP isn't advocating for 'mainstream' anarchism. Much like nearly all schools of socialist thought, anarchists strive for a technologically advanced, modern society. And given that the development of the modern corporation is fairly recent, I see no reason why the goods and services you've listed would be excluded or unattainable in an anarchist society.' You hone in on 'modern corporation' not as a means to undermine my statement but to attempt to out me as uninformed? This coming from a guy that told a previous poster in this thread that anarchism doesn't have aything to do with socialism.

Anyhow, I'm sure you know I'm not talking about examples here or there (the green grass - blue sky principle applies) but widespread acceptance. Since you love Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate#History_of_the_debate_in_the_United_States

 

[purplephazes]

I like Syd and Nancy ! They used to be my neighbours many years ago !

 

[Hayduke]

LMAO! I like how you show up tips hahaha

Tips is keeping it real!

 

[what... huh?]

Your kinda an idiot eh? haha anarchism is a branch? That I'm trying to start? haha There is anarchist resistant in every major country. 100,000 Anarchist shut down the wto in seattle for nearly a week.

How do anarchists organize? Anybody else find that funny?

The primary problem with anarchy as a concept is that without a system of governance, your freedom is trumped by my freedom, and vice versa. If I want your things I just go get them. I am free to. Say I have a hankering for your wife... and decide I will have my way with her... what is the consequence?

Only fear of the mob.

 

[cookin]

hayduke: externalities are kind of like side effects of transactions. they could be good like if your neighbour does up his front garden, its nice for you to but they can be bad, say dangerous chemicals released in a production process. most of negative ones need to be stopped by imposing standards, taxing to the point where its porfitable to produce at an acceptable level or handing out permits to pollute or whatever it may be, which in total add up to an acceptable level, they can also be traded, so that those who incur less costs can lower pollution and sell their permits to those that would have higher costs in reducing pollution.

public goods are things that if you use it everyone uses it, and also that if you use it there won't be less for the next person to use, air is obvious one. i think a national forest could be counted as one if its protected, as you would consume it be walking in it rather than chopping it, or maybe its just a common good as too much people would ruin it. not really sure should have gone to class. things like national defence are usually talked about, but there would be no nations in anarchism?? surely if we moved to anarchy now there must be someone in the army with a lot of influence that would want to rule and how would we stop that, happens enough with governments. without government i think the army would collapse into smaller factions supported by donations.

either way what you were saying about the species going extinc, if there was no government people would logically catch as much fish as possible as they would know there is no one to stop other people from doing the same.

edit: i should add that i'm really not sure about all of this i don't ever go to class and all of this is just from skimming textbooks to pass my exams, got a fucking development economics exam tomorrow that i need to start lol

 

[Loftiest]

How do anarchists organize? Anybody else find that funny?

The primary problem with anarchy as a concept is that without a system of governance, your freedom is trumped by my freedom, and vice versa. If I want your things I just go get them. I am free to. Say I have a hankering for your wife... and decide I will have my way with her... what is the consequence?

Only fear of the mob.

There would be systems of governance though. Anarchism is purely democratic socialism, so something akin to rotating labor boards could/would be used. For the most part, it's all touch and go: try this, see the effects, if disliked then discard.

 

[Loftiest]

public goods are things that if you use it everyone uses it, and also that if you use it there won't be less for the next person to use, air is obvious one. i think a national forest could be counted as one if its protected, as you would consume it be walking in it rather than chopping it, or maybe its just a common good as too much people would ruin it. not really sure should have gone to class. things like national defence are usually talked about, but there would be no nations in anarchism?? surely if we moved to anarchy now there must be someone in the army with a lot of influence that would want to rule and how would we stop that, happens enough with governments. without government i think the army would collapse into smaller factions supported by donations.

either way what you were saying about the species going extinc, if there was no government people would logically catch as much fish as possible as they would know there is no one to stop other people from doing the same.

edit: i should add that i'm really not sure about all of this i don't ever go to class and all of this is just from skimming textbooks to pass my exams, got a fucking development economics exam tomorrow that i need to start lol

There'd be 'nations' in a sense. It's along the lines of a syndicalist confederacy model. You've really discredited 'anarcho-capitalism' here more than anything. They'd enter into contractual obligations with private defense forces. The same with a judicial system. Now that'd truly be scary.

 

[Musical Suicide]

How do anarchists organize? Anybody else find that funny?

The primary problem with anarchy as a concept is that without a system of governance, your freedom is trumped by my freedom, and vice versa. If I want your things I just go get them. I am free to. Say I have a hankering for your wife... and decide I will have my way with her... what is the consequence?

Only fear of the mob.

my wife beating the shit outta you.... and me of course. Anarchist's organize just like all human beings... In a group, with goals, sometimes we write it down on paper, you know... like organizing??

 

[Musical Suicide]

wow, you sure are some anarchist. you just ran away crying. funny stuff. thank you.

Nope, I was just finding out your ip address.... nice pictures.. you sick sick man.... You know, having sex with children is a crime. and little boys??? come on dude.... pretty gross. Under anarchism, we would let the parents have their way with disgusting losers like you. I'm appalled. You'll get yours... rapist.

 

[tipsgnob]

that sounds like a threat fdd....why don't you ban this fool and get it over with?

 

[Musical Suicide]

sounds like a threat??? What part did I threaten something??? And he's busy having sex with my dead mom as he so elegantly put it. Ban me all you want, I'll be back, different name, different computer, same attitude, and no I wont let dicks talk shit and take it like the rest of you do. Just cause he has a little authority doesnt mean he's allowed to be rude and I'm not. Its funny how when I make points, most of you turn to insults. Like run away crying... haha you make me laugh.