Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation

Anti-Statism, Business, Corporatism, Libertarian Theory
Share

The politics of the left-oriented Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, like that of the right-oriented modern Tea Party movement, is not very well defined. But one of the things some of the OWS participants are calling for in their list of “demands” is an end to “corporate personhood.” In this they echo the views of left-libertarians who contend that state-chartered “corporations” are the source of grave social ills. [ See vol. 20, no. 1 and vol. 19, nos 3-4, of the Journal of Libertarian Studies, focusing on these and related issues, in particular articles by, and in response to, Piet-Hein van Eeghen’s anti-corporation views, and Kevin Carson’s views on mutualism. ]

Some of these issues were recently debated on the pages of Roderick Long’s blog, in the comments to his post “Double Standard.” Left-libertarians who oppose incorporation, and usually also “capitalism,” argue that firms derive some great benefit from the state by the privilege of incorporation. The standard leftist critique of the corporation is the “concession” theory outlined by Robert Hessen in his seminal study In Defense of the Corporation (see a key excerpt from Hessen corporation tort liability excerpts). They argue that the state grants to corporations three features: entity status, perpetual duration, and limited liability to shareholders, all of which are artificial and would not exist absent state intervention. Left-libertarians maintain that these privileges grant corporations more power than they otherwise would have, which distorts the market, nay, society in general. This gives rise to more “hierarchy” and “authoritarianism” than would prevail in what Hans-Hermann Hoppe calls a private law society, and indeed, to “exploitation” of the workers by the bourgeoisie.

The Alleged “Privileges” of Incorporation

Labor Theory of Value

There are several problems with the left-libertarian and leftist critiques of corporations. One is the acceptance of a Marxian-type labor theory of value—the idea that employers per se “steal” or exploit from workers the “social surplus product”—a discredited, hoary, unscientific view based on deeply flawed economics.

Entity Status

And as Hessen has pointed out, each of the three corporate features pointed to as a state-granted privilege—entity status, perpetual duration, and limited liability for shareholders—can be created purely by private contract. As for entity status (being able to represent the firm in lawsuits or for property ownership purposes, in the firm’s name) this is just a convenient legal fiction that could be created by means of trustees, or other contractual techniques (including agreements with private defense agencies, insurance companies, arbitral agencies, and the like). In any case, even stripped of this procedural convenience, firms could still organize themselves as joint stock companies or “corporations”.

Perpetual Duration

Hessen also easily disposes of the myth that perpetual duration is a privilege granted by the state; this can be achieved easily by means of continuity agreements and the like.

Limited Liability

The big objection to corporations is usually limited liability for shareholders. …

Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation Read Post »

Is Paul Krugman stupid, or just dishonest?

Business, Corporatism
Share

It seems that Nobel Prize-winning economist and reliable regime apologist Paul Krugman thinks he can wave away the Solyndra scandal with a reference to an iconic business failure from the dot-com era:

But it is indeed a terrible scandal, because the private sector never ever puts money into ventures that end up failing:

Pets.com sock puppet
No truth to the rumor that he's Obama's new campaign manager.

He then punctuates his point (oh so pithy!) by posting an image of Pets.com and its sock puppet.  I’m not sure if the sock puppet is equivalent to President Obama or Solyndra backer George Kaiser, who raised significant funds for Obama’s campaign, in this context.

What I’m also unsure about is if Krugman is an idiot, or just disingenuous, if he believes he can refute the criticism leveled at the Solyndra fiasco – not just from media, but from House investigators wondering how the company secured half a billion dollars in loan guarantees and made it all go up in smoke – merely by pointing out that private investors screw up, too.  He cannot possibly be oblivious to the huge difference in moral hazard presented when government throws taxpayers’ money at private business versus when private investors use their own money.

It isn’t that private equity is never lost in business ventures.  It’s that there’s a level of accountability when it happens.  And there is little doubt that venture capital investors learned a lot from the dot-com bubble.  Government will never learn the same lessons, because it throws stolen wealth at the ventures which are best connected politically, not those which it thinks will succeed.

Coyote Blog has a few more salient points in a response to Krugman.

Is Paul Krugman stupid, or just dishonest? Read Post »

It’s always sunny in Washington

Business, Mercantilism
Share

The future's so brightSolyndra, the solar panel manufacturer who abruptly shut its doors last week and filed for bankruptcy, received a $500 million loan guarantee in 2009 from the Department of Energy, who was so eager to prop up President Obama’s “green jobs” initiative that it short-circuited its own review process to approve the loan, which probably had nothing to do with the sizable contributions Solyndra’s backers made to the Obama campaign.  This is no doubt an embarrassment for the president, but I’m sure that had nothing to do with Federal agents swooping down on Solyndra’s offices on the day of his big jobs-plan speech.  Happiness is never having to say you’re sorry, especially when you can throw some other guy in prison to cover for your own incompetence.

It’s always sunny in Washington Read Post »

Gregory on “Why Capitalism Is Worth Defending”

(Austrian) Economics, Anti-Statism, Corporatism, The Left, The Right
Share

The prolific Anthony Gregory has a great article up today at LewRockwell.com, “Why Capitalism Is Worth Defending.” His view is that capitalism is “the greatest engine of material prosperity in human history, the fount of civilization, peace, and modernity.” As part of his argument he rejects the calls of some fellow travelers to drop the word capitalism because of its origins (it was coined by its enemies) and because it is used by some corporate capitalist types to refer to their preferred system. As Gregory writes:

even insofar as the word has negative connotations in popular culture, we might still want to adopt it. The anti-Federalists were initially opposed to the label affixed to them by the Hamiltonian statists. But now I would uphold that descriptor with pride. This is an area where we can take a cue from the gay rights activists who were smeared as “queer,” only to proudly appropriate the term for their own uses. … regardless of how we define it, in terms of feeding the masses and sustaining society, I will take flawed capitalism over flawed socialism any day. I will take state capitalism, crony capitalism, or corporate capitalism over state socialism, democratic socialism, or national socialism.

Another interesting insight Gregory makes is the parallel between capitalism itself and the use of the word: “Maybe it takes longer to explain ourselves when we adopt the battle cry of capitalism – it also takes longer to be a capitalist than only a consumer.”

Great piece.

 

Gregory on “Why Capitalism Is Worth Defending” Read Post »

Mimi & Eunice: Let’s Make More Regulations!

Corporatism, Mimi & Eunice on IP
Share

[Here’s another departure from our usual syndicated Mimi & Eunice content. It’s not strictly IP-related, but it was too good to pass up, dramatizing as it does the simultaneously comical and frustrating disconnect that most people have with regard to problems and solutions involving government. — GAP]

~*~

This is post originally appeared at Mimi and EuniceView original post.

Mimi & Eunice: Let’s Make More Regulations! Read Post »

Scroll to Top