A Question I got via PM

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
So it is your unequivocal claim that big corporations (or an analogue to corporation) would not exist under AC? Do you want to share with us how you know that?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It is my claim that big corporations carry with them certain costs and inefficiencies due to their size. Normally, on a free market, this is not a problem, since a larger company or corporation may accept some ineffiency of size if their is a greater benefit to be had. But government intervention masks these costs and generally shifts them unto others, so that the corporations (or at least those at the top of the ladder) get the benefits of the size but don't have to pay the costs.
So, I am not saying that *no* large companies would exist in an anarchist society (it might be helpful if you stopped asking about 'AC', since I don't claim to be an ACist nor do I favor some sort of uniformly AC society)--just that there would be far fewer large companies, since there would be no State to transfer and hide the costs of scale, nor to subsidize them with tax breaks, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
One would think that the economies and necessities of scale involved in things like oil production, refining and retailing; defense organizations; insurance, certain software systems, microprocessor manufacturing, aerospace manufacturing, and so forth would result in some very large corporations.

[/ QUOTE ]

These might lead to some larger companies, or they might not--I'm not going to sit here and try and predict which industires will have smaller companies and which ones will have larger ones. It's a waste of my time. My point is that government is essentially subsidizing the 'largeness' of corporations, and when you subsidize stuff you get more of it than you would under normal free market conditions.

[ QUOTE ]
Especially when combined with people's natural inclination to become as powerful as possible and to horde as much as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is government somehow magically exempt from this? When people have companies, they're greedy and evil and this will result in huge corporations, but when they work for government somehow it will work out fine?

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
I didnt realize your post, which depended on your incorrect proposition, was intended only for those with the same incorrect belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was intended as a response to the person to whom I was responding. I don't mind if you comment on it, but it would be nice if you provided some sort of reasoning.

[ QUOTE ]
It is not a matter of opinion, it has been demonstrated in numerous threads that companies can and have grown without (and sometimes in spite of) government "interference"

[/ QUOTE ]

I must have missed these groundbreaking revelations. In any case, my claim isn't that no companuies can ever get big without government intervention; it's that there would be far fewer large corporations without government interference since government makes it easier for corporations to be large my masking and transerring the natural costs and ineffiencies.

[ QUOTE ]
unless you agree with the equally untenable premise that the corporate form in and of itself is the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

No comment.

[ QUOTE ]
If you do, go live with the Amish, because thats about where you'd be without the corporate form.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
big corporations only have the power they do (and only get big) because of the influence of federal government.

[/ QUOTE ]
So it is your unequivocal claim that big corporations (or an analogue to corporation) would not exist under AC? Do you want to share with us how you know that?

[/ QUOTE ]

A "corporation" as we know it is a *creation* of the state. The *state* grants limited liability to the owners.

So yes, without a state, there will be no "corporations" with state-provided liability shields. Do you want to share with us how you think the situation could be otherwise?

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that government is essentially subsidizing the 'largeness' of corporations, and when you subsidize stuff you get more of it than you would under normal free market conditions.


[/ QUOTE ]

I might have missed it somewhere but could you briefly explain how the government subsidizes the largeness of corporations?

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
big corporations only have the power they do (and only get big) because of the influence of federal government.

[/ QUOTE ]
So it is your unequivocal claim that big corporations (or an analogue to corporation) would not exist under AC? Do you want to share with us how you know that?

[/ QUOTE ]

A "corporation" as we know it is a *creation* of the state. The *state* grants limited liability to the owners.

So yes, without a state, there will be no "corporations" with state-provided liability shields. Do you want to share with us how you think the situation could be otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does this nonsense keep poping up. It's the lastest in Semantic argument technology.

Corporations are defined as a legal entity unto themselves, that is, the owners share liability only for their actions and are not directly proportional to the "crimes" a company can commit.

More then once, someone has said "There won't be corporations" with AC. Where is this coming from?

Certainly the name might change (how's about "realllllly big company) but the idea that a business that's doing well enough to grow that large (this happens to plenty of businesses today so it will certainly happen in a 100% free market) won't have immunity from the law, in some form, is crazy.
There will be no universal law, that's the idea, laws are created out of deals between people and/or organizations. It's a given then, that power will coalesce with those companies making the money. Once it does, those companies will certainly begin to either disregard the law, with no penelty (good luck fighting Wal-Mart or Pfizer) or they'll just insert riders into their "business contracts" or the like that free them of responsibility, game over.

Power follows money, and money flows to those companies, and not even the mighty army of "free people" can resist the siren's song of a $1 pack of tube socks. Corporations are here to stay.

Cody

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
I might have missed it somewhere but could you briefly explain how the government subsidizes the largeness of corporations?

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't miss it; I haven't really argued for it in this thread. A lot of the stuff is obvious stuff, like the direct subsidies and the tax breaks that large corporations can get (obviously I'm not opposed to tax breaks per se, but when everyone else pays taxes except certain large businesses, it confers a competivitive advantage on them). Regulation and standardization also have the effect of making businesses larger, since they decrease the number of ways in which businesses can compete and make it easier for businesses to form cartels or to just merge together. Kevin Carson (he has lots of stuff about this topic on his website) also talks about the Interstate Highway System as way businesses are able to subtlely transfer the costs of economic centralization elsewhere.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
I might have missed it somewhere but could you briefly explain how the government subsidizes the largeness of corporations?

[/ QUOTE ]

A really good example I think is how Wal-Mart and friends acquire land through eminent domain seizures by local governments rather than having to pay market value.

Kelo v New London is another example of this.

[Copernicus]

Your first link doesnt support your contention:

"Eminent domain is a legal principle that allows the government to take private property for a "public use," such as a school or roads and bridges, in exchange for just compensation."

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
"Eminent domain is a legal principle that allows the government to take private property for a "public use," such as a school or roads and bridges, in exchange for just compensation."

[/ QUOTE ]

lol @ "just" compensation...

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Your first link doesnt support your contention:

"Eminent domain is a legal principle that allows the government to take private property for a "public use," such as a school or roads and bridges, in exchange for just compensation."

[/ QUOTE ]

Just according to whom? If it were just according to the (original) property owner, there would be no force needed to convince him to sell the land.