Comments on: Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation http://libertarianstandard.com/2011/10/18/corporate-personhood-limited-liability-and-double-taxation/ Property - Prosperity - Peace Wed, 20 Aug 2014 10:32:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2 By: Alan http://libertarianstandard.com/2011/10/18/corporate-personhood-limited-liability-and-double-taxation/#comment-3514 Sat, 22 Mar 2014 17:58:23 +0000 http://libertarianstandard.com/?p=9291#comment-3514

“I think it is rather hard to make the case that Bob should not share the responsibility with Morgan for the losses of the robbed liquor stores.”

If Bob knew about the purpose, then anybody would agree. If not, it’s a different story, and every state around the world disagrees in principle, because they immunize every officer that is responsible for any such abuse. The state simply claims capricious power to apply the principle at whim.

]]>
By: Alan http://libertarianstandard.com/2011/10/18/corporate-personhood-limited-liability-and-double-taxation/#comment-3513 Sat, 22 Mar 2014 17:58:02 +0000 http://libertarianstandard.com/?p=9291#comment-3513

“I think it is rather hard to make the case that Bob should not share the responsibility with Morgan for the losses of the robbed liquor stores.”

If Bob knew about the purpose, then anybody would agree. If not, it’s a different story, and every state around the world disagrees in principle, because they immunize every officer that is responsible for the abuse. The state simply claims capricious power to apply the principle at whim.

]]>
By: gabriel http://libertarianstandard.com/2011/10/18/corporate-personhood-limited-liability-and-double-taxation/#comment-3148 Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:39:46 +0000 http://libertarianstandard.com/?p=9291#comment-3148 Limited liability advantages corporations over small business. It insulates capital. How? Well, if a small businessman, running his own delivery truck, aciddentally kills someone on the road, he will pay, and so will his familiy secondarily as they could lose their home. If a corporate truck over runs a pedestrian, the investors will not have to pay, even though they have more capital.

Liability should not be artifically limited but rather addressed on a case by case basis. For instance, investors can be very aware of illegal actions by companies they invest in, yet claim ignorance and easily protect their capital.

]]>
By: Roger Stevens http://libertarianstandard.com/2011/10/18/corporate-personhood-limited-liability-and-double-taxation/#comment-2562 Wed, 04 Apr 2012 14:26:53 +0000 http://libertarianstandard.com/?p=9291#comment-2562 If corporations don’t need special protection by the state to act as “persons,” then why have they sought such protection with such determination for so long? Do you hold that they were merely acting to ensure rights that were theirs anyway, even though common law had for some reason failed to clarify that?

]]>
By: Harrington http://libertarianstandard.com/2011/10/18/corporate-personhood-limited-liability-and-double-taxation/#comment-2439 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:31:03 +0000 http://libertarianstandard.com/?p=9291#comment-2439 This is incorrect. Accessory before the fact, or aiding and abetting, (at least under Australian law) charges would lay against the driver in scenario two. More interesting is a third scenario, where the driver doesn’t know, and doesn’t care, what the person will at the bank – apart from “reasonable person” tests, the driver wouldn’t be legally responsible but might carry a moral responsibility. Perhaps this third scenario is more akin to investment in corporations via shares?

]]>
By: Harrington http://libertarianstandard.com/2011/10/18/corporate-personhood-limited-liability-and-double-taxation/#comment-2438 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:00:35 +0000 http://libertarianstandard.com/?p=9291#comment-2438 Kinsella, if the shareholder is not the owner, then who is?

The fundamental issue is one of responsibility – not just legal, but (dare I say it) moral.

With a “private” individual, generally, s/he is the owner, and s/he is responsible for their or their business’s actions. Responsible in law, but also, responsible as a member of a social group.

The corporation is a legal fiction, stemming from one off investments in colonial times, where the shareholder could lose only what s/he invested. The ensuing imperialism, based primarily on the profit motive, led to some horrendous outcomes, many of which the world is still, indirectly, dealing with (I am not claiming that ‘only’ corporations were responsible but they played a significant role).
We look for someone to blame, to take responsibility for actions that cause harm to others. When a corporation is the face of that blame, it rarely suffers as a private individual would. Even something as seemingly insignificant as social stigma can have a heavy effect on an individual and the way the rest of society relates to them – conversely, a corporation can perform a whitewash, pay off some directors and replace them. It is harder for an individual to do this, “finding God” may work once with one or two people but, generally ‘man’ is viewed by their actions. The corporation can blame previous corporate culture (ie the actual “real” people) and continue on with little real consequences after time.
If Dr Evil is responsible for forcing native Australians into slavery to ensure profits in his pearl diving industry, Dr Evil may well have his life shortened by someone who cares (I am being extreme only to stress a point). The Dutch East India company will simply replace their pearl diving manager with another individual who will likely carry on the same business practices.
Netterville was more thorough in his analysis of your paper, and I find his points compelling. I have tried to limit my position, to this single point of “responsibility and consequences”.

]]>
By: Tommy http://libertarianstandard.com/2011/10/18/corporate-personhood-limited-liability-and-double-taxation/#comment-2364 Sat, 21 Jan 2012 20:14:48 +0000 http://libertarianstandard.com/?p=9291#comment-2364 This discussion focuses on the distinction between corporations and states. While it is a debate between right-libertarians and left-libertarians it follows the same pattern of mainstream left and right, OWS and Tea Party. I’ll try to offer, not the difference, but the similarity of state and corporation.

The state and the corporation have the same aim and essence. They only differ in tactic. They both seek to centralize wealth/power into the hands of a few to use as their own. The State gathers tax money and sanctioning for their monopoly on violent power into the hands of a few to use as they see fit. The corporation seeks to gather capital from stock owners to be used by the controlling body as they see fit. And to be clear, this gathered capitol is not a loan because it never has to be paid back. It becomes the property of the controlling group of the corporation just as taxes become the property of the state. This is all done under the façade that stock ownership is actual ownership of the corporation. This is a great ruse. The owner of a business has liability for it. The owner of a business also owns the profits. At the periodic (end of year) balancing of the books any profit belongs exclusively to the stock holders. The decision to not pay complete dividends is as much a theft as is taxes. If the corporation has respect for personal property rights in must return the profits to the share-holders. If the corporation wants to reinvest these profits then it must ask he share-holder for the money back under the arrangement of a loan, a contract that will return both principle and interest back to the share-holder.

Private property rights need to be applied correctly to finance as well. The usury paid for the use of capital belongs exclusively to the individual owner of that capital. The banker is only due a service fee (which should be made clear within the transactions). A banker who invests depositor’s capital and keeps the usury is a thief. Allow me to reiterate that, and really think about the personal property rights couched in this situation: A banker who invests depositor’s capital and keeps the usury is a thief. And shouldn’t we all ask who is the owner of fiat money? And to whom is the usury due?

The above are two ways that wealth is centralized, i.e. gathered in from the many under a controlling group which goes about using it as if it were their own. This is done by violating the private property rights of individuals. This ethical fact is not ameliorated by the fact that these are voluntary exchanges. Choices always come down to the best of the options presented. Those who present the options control the choice. The defense of the personhood of corporations is not the defense of individual liberties nor of “the free market.” Corporations are not based on individual liberties and do not deserve the championing that the right gives them.

]]>
By: ArrestThePolice http://libertarianstandard.com/2011/10/18/corporate-personhood-limited-liability-and-double-taxation/#comment-2358 Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:44:40 +0000 http://libertarianstandard.com/?p=9291#comment-2358 There is a problem leftists seem to have with linguistic precision. I have read many libertarian-left attacks on, for example, Misesian rationality that start out with “It ignores the irrational elements like whims and emotion and social pressure”, etc. I get the feeling that they don’t even CARE what they are talking about, as long as they can pick up stinky hipster women.

]]>
By: Jamie Moor http://libertarianstandard.com/2011/10/18/corporate-personhood-limited-liability-and-double-taxation/#comment-2234 Sun, 04 Dec 2011 09:51:56 +0000 http://libertarianstandard.com/?p=9291#comment-2234 Left-libertarianism is what happens when Trustifarians are treated as serious thinkers.

]]>
By: Jamie Moor http://libertarianstandard.com/2011/10/18/corporate-personhood-limited-liability-and-double-taxation/#comment-2228 Sun, 04 Dec 2011 07:21:17 +0000 http://libertarianstandard.com/?p=9291#comment-2228 It sometimes astounds me how ignorant most libertarians are on the actual workings of business and contract.

]]>