Postition: The libertarians are the loudest folks at the table complaining about the corporate-government axis of control. Unlike the conservatives who complain mostly about the government, or the progressives who complain mostly about the corporations...the libertarians recognize that there's a vicious cycle in which government charters corporations, then corporations influence government for special privileges, and so on...creating massive imbalances of power in favor of corporations and opposed to everyone else.
Conclusion: At the core of any good libertarian approach to government must be the abolishment of limited liability corporations. Elsewise the structure guarantees repetition.
Position: The core problem at the center of our modern conception of the world is the relationship of the citizen to the government. Insofar as the government can force the citizenry to do as it is told...there is a problem.
Conclusion: The problem is the separation of the citizenry into citizenry and police. Abolish the police, and ALL police prerogative; deputize the citizenry. Without this, you're screwed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
Is there evidence that the limited liability company is worse in this respect than forms that existed prior to that development such as partnerships?
JP Morgan was a partnership during the guilded age IIRC.
"Unlike the conservatives who complain mostly about the government, or the progressives who complain mostly about the corporations."
Most Conservatives complain mostly about taxes, not government. The list of things they want government to do is endless.
I'm not sure why I should be against LLCs. They lower the costs of investment in them. I don't see why abolishing them would fix the problems we've had with moral hazard, etc. What do they do in Switzerland or Singapore?
I know how we can work on that googoo corporate stuff! Import several million Socialists!
Pew Hispanic social scientists say:
"When it comes to the size of government, Hispanics are more likely than the general public to say they would rather have a bigger government providing more services than a smaller government with fewer services. Some 75% of Hispanics say this, while 19% say they would rather have a smaller government with fewer services. By contrast, just 41% of the general U.S. public say they want a bigger government, while nearly half (48%) say they want a smaller government.
"Support for a larger government is greatest among immigrant Latinos. More than eight-in-ten (81%) say they would rather have a bigger government with more services than a smaller government with fewer services. The share that wants a bigger government falls to 72% among second-generation Hispanics and 58% among third-generation Hispanics."
Immaterial. Irrelevant. All we got to do is wait two generations for the worst of the commie cooties to wash away.
Come on, this is troll bait, right? End llcs, llps, etc? That is a terribly unsophisticated take. Not worthy of this blog. Llcs and llps allow contractual freedom for allocating risk. The issue instead is corporate welfare and the betrayal of the market.
LLC's allow folks to organize as corporations and remove much/most of personal responsibility for what happens.
Corporate Welfare is only one small layer of the problem. The big problem is that corporations are fundamentally creations of the state..built to shield the rich from their errors.
Any time that liability is separated from error, there are going to be problems. In an economy, for example, if some entity prevents poor performance from bankrupting the groups making mistakes, the resources being used by those groups will continue to be misallocated. This is what happens when government props up favored corporations. Or, on a smaller, more personal scale, if your wealthy sugar-daddy keeps "loaning" you money to run your art gallery.
So, when there is no personal downside for a corporate CEO to make prudent decisions, bad stuff happens. And the government will either bail out the corporation, or allow him/her to be golden parachuted, and the stockholders, employees, and customers get screwed. All too often, those former CEOs end up in that same government. It's like expecting a police conduct review board made up entirely of current police officers will almost never censure police misconduct ("they followed procedure").
UN PRESIDENT TIM KALEMKARIAN, US PRESIDENT TIM KALEMKARIAN, US SENATE TIM KALEMKARIAN, US HOUSE TIM KALEMKARIAN: BEST MAJOR CANDIDATE.
#7 of Peel’s Principles for modern policing (from 1929):
Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
Doesn’t matter how brilliant the system is if the people don’t follow it.
er, 1829.
The idea of a separate police force isn’t that old.
Foxmarks,
1. Welcome to the blog.
2. Well said.
3. I think that Peel was an early adopter. I'm betting dollars to donuts that in 1829, the Police force existed in rare locations, but in most places there wasn't one. If the popular adoption of police was normal (in the Anglo world) 100 years ago, color me shocked.
Post a Comment