TT's Lost in Tokyo — by TokyoTom

[Note: this started as a Facebook post, which is also open for comment.]

I have been bugged by friends to share some thoughts on the recent discussion (January 2015) between Tom Woods​ and Stephan Kinsella on the “libertarian-ness” of corporations, which was held on the Thomas Woods​ Show, and which they have respectively posted, with supporting references:

http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-325-are-corporations-un-libertarian/
http://www.stephankinsella.com/paf-podcast/kol170-tom-woods-show-are-corporations-unlibertarian/

I’ve had countless discussions with Stephan on this topic, chiefly when the Ludwig von Mises Institute ran an open blog; many great conversations were lost when LvMI closed down the blog, but the interested reader can find some of my own conversations here (I backed them up to a personal LvMI blog, and further migrated them when those too were closed by LvMI):

Here are a few thoughts that I shared privately with someone, both in advance of listening to Stefan and as the talk show proceeded:

He’s missing how the state provision of the legal entity structure, and especially the limited liability aspect, has, by risk socialization flowing from shareholders’ incentives to turn a blind eye (to NOT be involved in decisions that hurt others) fuelled the growth of the snowballing and ever-more captured regulatory state.

He mis-states here completely how corporations came about — they were all one-off, special purpose and limited-duration monopolies created in the public interest, not charters that the government let you file that were just like limited partnership agreements.

I am happy that he says state incorporation statutes (and government-made corps, presumably), should be done away with.

His statement that legal entity status is a convenience for the benefit of creditors is basically hogwash — without entity status, creditors could sue ANY (all if they wanted) partners and employees, and let THEM either bring others in as co-defendants or let them work out indemnification arrangements. Entity status is not favor to creditors.

He’s finally making some of the arguments that I did years back — that the favors granted in creating corporations are an excuse/justification for endless meddling by governments in business affairs.

I’ve proposed marked deregulation of non-corporate businesses and of corps whose owners keep a risk tail (i.e., in the case that equity is only partially paid-in, so that directors would have a capital call on shareholders if claims were to exceed assets), but Kinsella instead is trying to say that all government “favors” are meaningless, so government regulations of the corporations they create were never justified. —

It’s an argument that entirely ignores the easily accessed history of harms that, because corporations were made in the “public interest”, courts let corporations get away with, so that people had to go running to legislatures to beg government to “do something” about the corporate Frankensteins that the government had set loose. And it ignores that corporations drive regulatory capture and that the big ones are the partners of government — so much so that it has long been damned-near impossible to tell where business ends and government begins.

He says it would be a good thing if we removed legal entity status — I appreciate this, but in fact, of course, everyone (and Stephan himself) uses Stephan’s argument to deflect criticism from corporations and crony capitalism.

He speculates that “that wouldn’t lead to unlimited liability” for shareholders, but that’s largely a strawman — shareholders could be sued, and would have to bear costs of defense, which would make them quite interested in making sure the execs/manages/employees weren’t running around creating risks/hurting people. Just POTENTIAL exposure to risk gets people’s attention, and cutting that off is a massive subsidy to corporations.

Of course business firms that aren’t corporations could outlive their founders — through a gradual handover to younger generations, bringing in others, etc. But the natural, common law methods of business organization (partnerships, family businesses, cooperatives and associations) keep the owners very, very interested in making sure possible successors are brought up within the firm and understand employees, customers, suppliers, community members, etc., and in carefully monitoring the activities of such possible successors.

The artificial, statist corporation form loosens the bonds of mutual accountability  among owners, and between employees/other community members.

As for limited liability; he’s right about voluntary creditors — that voluntary counterparts can agree to limit each other’s liability to “business assets” only, and to exclude the personal assets of owners.

But as for the involuntary tort creditors, creating the corporate form and eliminating any possible liability of shareholders has had the clear consequence of totally muddling WHO it is that is acting and who should be responsible for torts — so we ended up totally eviscerating the old doctrines of privity of contract, grossly expanding the notion of “respondeat superior” (so corporate assets are on the hook, even when it isn’t clear what INDIVIDUALS ought to be liable for harms) and a lessening of accountability within firms. (Witness the confusion of Stephan and Lew Rockwell regarding the catastrophic BP Horizon blow out a few years ago, when they proclaimed that “BP” was the “biggest victim” of the catastrophe, without identifying whether the victims were those killed, workers generally, managers, execs or shareholders, and that “accidents happen”.)

I agree that “ownership” shouldn’t necessarily imply personal responsibility when innocent persons are harmed in the course of corporate business activities — my point is that shareholders should NOT be automatically excluded from POTENTIAL liability. By excluding them entirely for liability the effect has to been fashion unnaturally large pools of assets and capital that are managed by executives who are agents for no principals whatsoever, leading to a host of nonsense, including not simply a massive Regulatory State and rampant crony capitalism, but to nearly powerless shareholders in listed companies whom themselves claim to be “victims” whenever Bad Shit “happens.”

His argument that shareholders aren’t “owners” is garbage; it’s another post facto argument, and itself statist. Until this point, he argued that shareholders were just like partners/limited partners (who just have indemnity agreements that spread out individual liability for claims by making each other mutually responsible) –now he’s arguing that, hey, because the shareholders BY LAW have no responsibility, they shouldn’t be considered “owners”.

He then makes the point — which I made to him years ago — that if shareholders were exposed to risk, they would just buy INSURANCE — so the world would NOT collapse and everything would just go on as before. Well, not so fast — if shareholders had potential risk exposure and wanted insurance, it would be a COST that they would have to bear — and what he’s actually doing is acknowledging that, at least as to the cost of such insurance (which would vary company by company, industry by industry), government is now currently SUBSIDIZING corporations (or at least being shareholders in them).

As a result, his “net of causality” for torts has been totally confused.

His argument that shareholders may not contribute a dime directly to the corporation is technically true, but that’s another post facto argument. If there was no corporation, then any new partner in a partnership would certainly, if not also be making a partnership contribution, be directly undertaking obligations to the other partners.

All of the D&O and other liability insurance that Kinsella refers to have real costs; the bigger the firm, the more government-afforded protection, and the less important these costs are. Further, of course, thanks to the government-granted “get out of potential liability free” card (in the form of limited liability), shareholders in corporations don’t have to face costs and risks of monitoring, insuring or self-insuring for potential liability or hassles of being sued by injured persons if damages exceed the assets of whoever proximately caused them or the insurance coverage and business assets of the firm. These things matter, and we face greater risks and reduced incentives (and corresponding markets) to monitor and manage risks as a result.

[from a Facebook post]

State-made limited liability corporations are the health of the massive Regulatory State, which is likewise the health of the crony corporations. It’s a rachet, and racket.

Are you a Bootlegger, or a Baptist?

In free, voluntary markets, there is no Get-Out-of-Personal-Liability-for-Harms-Caused-to-Others-Free Card.

Limited liability for shareholders is a state-granted favor that is demonstrably at the bottom of the dynamic of people forever running to a gamed “democratic” government, to make government make its creations behave more nicely (with the regulations then serving to protect the big, to limit competition, and to fuel corruption and further government capture). As soon as governments began creating corporate monopolies and/or limited liability cos, then judges followed suit by rejecting strict common-law protections of private property in favor of a pollution-/corporation-favoring “balance” of equities that Block and Rothbard noted.

In a private law society, one finds ALWAYS individuals and associations of individuals who may negotiate liability caps with voluntary counterparties, but remain potentially personally liable up to the remainder of their personal assets for harms that their activities (and those of their agents) caused to others.

While the persons who actually directly caused harms would of course be liable, their principals would try to limit their own potential exposure by either closely managing their agents or making sure that others were independent contractors.

Historian and Constitutional scholar Kevin Guzman posted a comment on his Facebook wall on the Citizens United decision that I took a disliking to.

Here is his September 6, 2014 post and my responses (to him and his other commenters):

There’s a popular meme that “Corporations aren’t people.” The aim is to repeal the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United that Congress cannot under the Speech and Press Clauses of the First Amendment limit political advertising so stringently as it had been under the McCain-Feingold Act. The point of the meme is that only people are entitled to constitutional protections, and so Congress can do whatever it wants to corporations. Let’s follow the implications of the claim that “Corporations aren’t people.”

September 7 at 1:24am

Tokyo Tom Kevin, this is an interesting an important topic, which hasn’t been set up very well. 

First, I think you missed the gist of the Dartmouth case, which essentially said that NH couldn’t alter Dartmouth’s charter (which had been granted by the English Crown), because the corporate charter was a form of private contract that was protected from “impairment” by states under the Constitution. The case was brought by the Trustees of Dartmouth, and didn’t particularly “recognize that corporations do indeed have rights of individuals.” States responded by reserving greater powers when they create corporations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1818/1818_0
http://www.americanbar.org/…/students_in…/dartmouth.html

September 7 at 1:32am

Tokyo Tom Hopefully, we’re all clear on the fact that corporations are created by governments, were traditionally considered as forms of contracts and property rights, and have special powers, rights and characteristics provided by state legislatures that render them quite different from real, live human beings?

Unfortunately, many on the Left and Right are confused about the origin, history and nature of corporations. As I said to some progressives:

“Sadly, it seems that most if not all of the progressives here want to deny what cannot be denied: that corporations exist only because they are made by acts of legislative power of Governments. They also want to deny that the special characteristics that Govt give to “corporations” are the very attributes that lead to harms to others/social ills that continually fuel more regulation of corporations by governments.

“It’s hard to discern why they have these views–perhaps, because they are so ingrained in seeing Govt as their sole savior in fighting against corporate Frankensteins–but they are clearly incorrect, as a legal and historical matter.
Be that as it may, as a matter of understanding and attacking the roots of our problems, it behooves progressives to investigate and understand how government and corporations shape the incentives and influence the behavior of the people who find themselves within them.

“Not only do corporations exist only because of Govt, but it is clear that the reasons why corporations play such negative roles in society and have corrupted Govt are their state-granted characteristics that would NOT exist in a “free market”. Sole proprietorships, partnerships, associations and co-operatives do NOT have#LimitedLiability, unlimited lives, unlimited purposes, and the businesses do not have legal entity status different from the owners.

http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/…/corporations…

 

September 7 at 1:47am

Tokyo Tom Corporations have continued to find the Federal government and Supreme Court their friend in escaping control by the states that created them; see this pre-Citizens United post about the perversion of the anti-discrimination (due process/equal protection) provisions of the 14th Amendment (that used “persons” to protect freed slaves and unnaturalized Chinese) to require various states to treat corporations made in other states the same as their own corporations:

http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/…/corpspeak…/

 

September 7 at 1:51am

Tokyo Tom Karl Pope’s thoughts after Citizens United are largely spot on, and explain the drive that Sen. Colburn is now sponsoring to convene a Constitutional Convention to consider amendments:

http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/…/carl-pope-sierra…/

 

• Kevin Gutzman It’s impossible to remove money from politics. If you deny individuals the right to buy political ads, you’ve effectively elevated owners of media corporations to the status of Elite Class, as only they will be able to say what they want. On the other hand, the Tenth Amendment reserves power to regulate elections to the states; if they want to ban donations from out-of-state interests or individuals, they should be allowed to do so. Score another negative result for the Incorporation Doctrine.

  September 7 at 2:55am ·
• 

  Kevin Gutzman I think that all federal campaign regulation is unconstitutional, as nothing in the Constitution empowers Congress to regulate anything other than the “time, place, and manner” of elections. At the federal level, there’s no reason not to have a sunshine law requiring disclosure of all donations.

  September 7 at 2:57am · Edited ·
• 

  Tokyo Tom Good point, Savana — states can and should be able to condition any corporate license on things that the corporation cannot do in its own name, such as lobbying. 

  Such a conditioning of the grant of corporate charter would be Consitutional, and would NOT deprive any individual of his own rights to lobby (or to combine with other employees to do so).If we want to get crony capitalism and the runaway regulatory state under control, we should simply stop granting #LtdLiability to corporate shareholders, and restore shareholder responsibility to monitor risk management by executives and managers.

  http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/…/immodest…/

  Tokyo Tom Kevin, I didn’t realize that “deny[ing] individuals the right to buy political ads” was the premise here, but denying the “right” of state-made entities to buy political ads, make contributions etc.

  September 7 at 3:03am

  • Tokyo Tom From my own Constitutional analysis, corporations, as artificial things, don’t “speak” at all (just as a printing press doesn’t speak either); people speak. Unfortunately, corporations (including media corporations) HAVE become ways for people to mask WHO is speaking. I think it perfectly acceptable under state corporation law and under the 1st Ad to constrain certain types of corporate “speech”.

    September 10 at 7:00pm · Edited
  • 

    Kevin Gutzman Big money wins? Big money often loses. Google “Michael Huffington” or “Clayton Williams” and see what you find. Let people know who is doing the contributing.

    Note: I agree with Savana that foreign contributions should be illegal. In theory, they already are, although Bill Clinton took advantage of them, (in)famously.

    September 7 at 3:21am
  • 

    Kevin Gutzman The idea that I should be forced to contribute to Hillary2016! thrills me about as much as being forced to help fund the Westboro Baptist Church.

    Tokyo Tom SCOTUS has the First Amendment wrong －this was intended to bind tie Feds, at a time when corporations were profoundly despised and considered property of their shareholders, with rights only grudgingly granted by states.

    Property doesn’t “speak,” even as every single shareholder and employee retains full personal speech rights.

    September 8 at 1:33am · Edited

    Kevin Gutzman “Groups of people are not people.” — ISIS

    September 8 at 1:36am ·

    Tokyo Tom Mark, without corporations, are people UNABLE to associate to conduct business together?

    Corporations are creations of governments. People are not. Nor are voluntary associations of people, as businesses/partnerships, co-ops, unions or churches.

    September 9 at 1:27pm · Edited ·

    Tokyo Tom ISIS? “of course a few less than enlightened people are not seeing the distinction between an inactive band of musicians and a band of terrorists involved in current world affairs.”

    • http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/5722758

  September 8 at 11:12am

  Kevin Gutzman Right, they’re sheep.
  Special sheep with all the constitutional rights of individuals that they are capable of exercising–as I enumerated in my original post. The only one they don’t have is, “coincidentally,” the one the Democratic Party doesn’t want them to have.
  From Dred Scott to present, that’s the way Democratic Party “constitutionalism” works.

  September 8 at 11:35pm

  Tokyo Tom “Of course corporations have the same rights as people. A corporation is not a tangible thing. It is an abstract term describing a group of organized individuals/people.”Balderdash on a stick, that we are reminded of in the cases of BP and Fukushima. Show me any individuals without a government-made liability shield who could do the damage that corporations (and governments do). Where are the mass torts? The Superfund sites?

  Individuals, business partnerships and coops can all be kept in check (to a significantly greater degree) by others in the communities in which they live.

  http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/…/quot-biggest…/

  Kevin Gutzman Tokyo Tom, I got off at “Senator Joe Barton.”

  September 8 at 11:15pm

  Tokyo Tom State-made corporations are the health of the massive regulatory state, which is likewise the health of the crony corporations. It’s a rachet, and racket.

  Are you a Bootlegger, or a Baptist?

  September 8 at 11:38pm

  Tokyo Tom Let’s look more at BP as a “person”:|

  • 
    Jim Hightower:
    “And now, its rap sheet grows almost daily. In fact, the Center for Public Integrity has revealed that the oil giant’s current catastrophic mess should come as no surprise, for it has a long and sorry record of causing calamities. In the last three years, the center says, an astonishing “97 percent of all flagrant violations found in the refining industry by government safety inspectors” came at BP facilities. These included 760 violations rated as “egregious” and “willful.” In contrast, the oil company with the second-worst record had only eight such citations.While its CEO, Tony Hayward, claims that its gulf blowout was simply a tragic accident that no one could’ve foreseen, internal corporate documents reveal that BP itself had been struggling for nearly a year with its inability to get this well under control. Also, it had been willfully violating its own safety policies and had flat out lied to regulators about its ability to cope with what’s delicately called a major “petroleum release” in the Gulf of Mexico.

    “What the hell did we do to deserve this?” Hayward asked shortly after his faulty well exploded. Excuse us, Tony, but you’re not the victim here — and this disaster is not the work of fate. Rather, the deadly gusher in the gulf is a direct product of BP’s reckless pursuit of profits. You waltzed around environmental protections, deliberately avoided installing relatively cheap safety equipment, and cavalierly lied about the likelihood of disaster and your ability to cope with it.

    “It wasn’t our accident,” the CEO later declared, as oil was spreading. Wow, Tony, in one four-word sentence, you told two lies. First, BP owns the well, and it is your mess. Second, the mess was not an “accident,” but the inevitable result of hubris and greed flowing straight from BP’s executive suite.
    “The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean,” Hayward told the media, trying to sidestep the fact that BP’s mess was fast becoming America’s worst oil calamity. Indeed, Tony coolly explained that the amount of oil spewing from the well “is tiny in relation to the total water volume.” This flabbergasting comment came only two weeks before it was revealed that the amount of gushing oil was 19 times more than BP had been claiming.
    Eleven oil workers are dead, thousands of Gulf Coast people have had their livelihoods devastated and unfathomable damage is being done to the gulf ecology. Imagine how the authorities would be treating the offender if BP were a person. It would’ve been put behind bars long ago — if not on death row.
    [link above, past the Joe Barton part]

    And here’s a couple of fun video clips riffing on the nature of the unaccountability of corporate/BP execs (not to mention the absentee shareholders, “protected by limited liability” who are themselves “victims”):

    http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/…/satire-oil-spill…/
    http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/…/time-light-humor…/

    September 9 at 1:35pm

    Tokyo Tom Corporations are “Special sheep with all the constitutional rights of individuals that they are capable of exercising,” Kevin?
    Hah. Try limited liability for one.http://archive.freecapitalists.org/…/speech-and…

    September 9 at 1:41pm

    Tokyo Tom Corporations are the Health of the State. Is this why you and other good “conservatives” cheer them on, Kevin?
    http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/?s=health+of+state

    September 9 at 1:42pm

    Tokyo Tom Timothy, can I recommend you look at well-known Republican shareholder activist Robert Monks, and “drone corporations”?
    The most abusive crony corporations tend to be a low-performing bunch of listed firms, with no significant shareholder blocs:http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/?s=drone+corporation

    September 9 at 1:46pm

    Tokyo Tom Stacey, yes, my problem is with “corporatism” and how government-made corporations are the hand-maiden of both the snowballing state, crony capitalism, and confused people across the spectrum bewailing or defending “capitalism!” and “free markets”. is the natural result of governments creating Btw,
    1. BP is half Amoco, and ofc operates in the US through subsidiaries. Did you miss this in my quote? In the period just before 2010, “an astonishing “97 percent of all flagrant violations found in the refining industry by government safety inspectors” came at BP facilities. These included 760 violations rated as “egregious” and “willful.” In contrast, the oil company with the second-worst record had only eight such citations.”

    2. They “are sorry individuals, should they not have rights?”

    Which “they” are you talking about, and for what purposes? If you are talking about “speech”,” then in the case of BP, who is it who is speaking, and for whom? Who speaks for workers killed? Shareholders? Management? Who are the principals, and who are the agents?

    Every individual in BP/connected to BP retains personal rights to speak, and can form voluntary groups to do so if they wish–the doctrine Kevin is pushing is a socialist/collectivist one that DENIES individual accountability and and MASKS self-interest, thus forcing those who interact with or are affected by BP into a position where, since individual accountability is near-impossible, to seek government assistance in getting at least some collective responsibility, but little private redress — very little of whatever the government ends up collecting from BP will actually trickle down, and individuals will remain beholden to the government and to BP for risk management going forward, rather than having direct rights.

    See my above clips on BP cats and the Clarke and Dawe spoof for light takes on unaccountability and who speaks for whom.

    September 9 at 2:27pm

    Kevin Gutzman Tom, you have got to be kidding. The reason Obama wants to muzzle corporations is so that he can take more of our money and give it to his constituents, invite more Guatemalans to come here and become his constituents, etc. He sees them as an obstacle, and so he wants to undo American legal precedent dating all the way back to the days when a ratifier of the Constitution was chief justice of the Supreme Court. And you say that I am the one who is pushing statism. Since the Revolution of 1937, there has never been a time when the Democratic Party stood for originalism in constitutional interpretation; they always argue for new, unknown doctrines that advance redistribution, secularization, etc. This new idea that corporations don’t have the rights of individuals is more of the same.

    September 9 at 2:36pm · Edited

    Tokyo Tom The purpose of the First Amendment was to protect we the people from acts of the Federal government, NOT to protect state-created corporations from the governments and people who make them.The Federal government, this time through the Supreme Court, continues to play the role of helping elites, through state-created corporations, to destroy free markets and local representative government.

    I’m sorry to see so many deluded “conservative” cheerleaders for this.

    September 9 at 3:28pm

    Tokyo Tom The answer to the following question is “NO”: [Does it make any sense to treat corporations as “persons”, given the differences in incentive structures?]
    http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/…/sense-treat…/

    September 9 at 3:29pm

    • Kevin Gutzman Give me a break. The new argument that government can regulate corporate purchases of political advertizing is entirely about protecting incumbents from criticism. McCain said so, explicitly.

      September 9 at 3:29pm

      Kevin Gutzman If you think advertizing against Obama is “destroying free markets,” we speak different languages.
    • September 9 at 3:30pm
    • Tokyo Tom Whip conflation now, Kevin. Try addressing my actual arguments.

      September 9 at 3:32pm
    • Kevin Gutzman Show me where the Constitution gives Congress power to regulate purchases of political ads by corporations. You can’t, because it doesn’t. The argument that it does is based on the “reading” of the Commerce Clause invented by Klansman Black and his fellow FDR political hacks in the 1930s. It’s completely contrary to the 10th Amendment.

      September 9 at 3:32pm
    • Kevin Gutzman Case closed.

      September 9 at 3:33pm
    • Tokyo Tom I’m not a fan of the Feds regulating anything, Kevin. But the states that make corporations sure as hell have a right to limit what they can do in exchange for very special privileges granted.

      September 9 at 3:34pm
    • Tokyo Tom But I already addressed the First Ad several times upthread. Corporations are THINGS, not people. Things don’t “speak”, at least for Constitutional purposes.

      September 9 at 3:36pm ·
    • Tokyo Tom My argument doesn’t refer to the absurd Commerce clause jurisprudence at all.

      September 9 at 3:37pm
    • Tokyo Tom “The new argument that government can regulate corporate purchases of political advertizing is entirely about protecting incumbents from criticism.”

      I am sure that this IS the case now, but the argument against allowing corporations to speak (why does NYT get special treatment?) is 100+ years old — pretty sure I copied in a Teddy Roosevelt quote upthread.But you’re a HISTORIAN; you know this already.

      September 9 at 3:51pm

      • Stacey York Morris States that “make” corporations? Huh?

        September 9 at 3:40pm
      • Tokyo Tom Stacey, yes. Surely you’re aware of “corporation laws”, and checked out the Dartmouth case (rare exception of a one-off corporation made by King George). Corporations are creatures of governments — there are NO “free market” corporations.

        September 9 at 3:43pm
      • Tokyo Tom The American Taliban is alive and well in “conservatives” who reflexively defend as “free markets” the corporatism that has always fuelled the “Progressive” movement.

        We have our own Sunni and Shia, battling over who gets to control the State:http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/…/state…/
        http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/…/dysfunction…/

        September 9 at 3:50pm 

        Stacey York Morris States don’t create corporations. They tax them but thats not creation. I’m a teeny corporation and trust me, the state did nothing. States don’t have the right to silence them one bit. They do court them but that’s because they bring jobs for their state and lots of tax money. States like Maryland and California blackmail and harass them to death. Charge them for infrastructure and tax them at the federal rate which is highest in world, so they may find a state that is more friendly, but that’s not “creating” them. King George wasn’t a capitalist.

        September 9 at 3:53pm

        Tokyo Tom Stacey, unfortunately you’re sounding more like a liberal all the time, with the wrinkle that they deny that governments make corporations because it’s their view that the evil aspects of corporations are due to “capitalism” and “greed”, while with you it’s a desire to defend “free markets” from “greedy” and “grasping” GOVERNMENTS (did you NOT read the Sheldon Richman piece that you posted above)?Undeniably, corporations are made by governments; the fact that governments have, via a race to the bottom have “democratized” the process doesn’t change its nature. Rather, it simply masks the deep roots of corporatism and the reasons for the regulatory state.

        I explained this upthread already, with excerpts from this blog post:

        http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/…/corporations…/

        September 9 at 4:51pm

        • Brett Sylvester ^ Funny how advocates of free markets can perfectly predict the property norms that would arise in the absence of a sate…

          September 9 at 5:29pm
        • Tokyo Tom Brett, if you’re talking to me, I fail to see how you’re addressing anything I’ve said.

          Propertyrights continuously evolve in all societies, as technology, demand, mores and institutions change.So?

          September 9 at 9:45pm · Edited
        • Tokyo Tom Jeff, focus. We’re only talking about the corporate form – which is undeniably a creature of governments and not free markets. Our Founding Fathers all knew this, and detested the Crown’s corporations/monopolies － does the original Tea Party not ring a bell?

          But you raise an important issue － the deep entanglement of government with business that flows from government creation of corporate forms is what underlies people bashing “business” and “capitalism” when they mean corporatism, as well as why they think governments have rights to micromanage business.

          September 9 at 9:58pm

          • Kevin Gutzman I reference specific provisions of the Constitution, and Tom invokes proto-fascist Theodore Roosevelt. Non sequitur.

            September 10 at 2:05am
          • Kevin Gutzman I agree that states have a right to regulate corporate behavior. I oppose the Incorporation Doctrine.

            September 10 at 2:06am

            Kevin Gutzman Since a corporation’s holdings are the pooled property of its shareholders, yes, it has fiduciary responsibility for the property to which they have a natural right. That’s why in Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), Chief Justice Marshall spoke of the shareholders’ rights in considering the College’s claims.

            September 10 at 11:33am

            • Kevin Gutzman Some corporate crimes lead to incarceration of officers, some don’t.
              The reasons there’s a move to deny that corporations have rights are two: 1) that some politicians don’t like being criticized, and so want to ban corporations from contributing to campaigns against them (as McCain said in explaining the McCain-Feingold Law); and 2) that there’s a general tendency for the Federal Government to deny all rights as they come to mind, and Citizens United brought this particular set to mind.

              September 10 at 2:12pm ·
            • Tokyo Tom “I reference specific provisions of the Constitution, and Tom invokes proto-fascist Theodore Roosevelt. Non sequitur.”Hah. The historian can’t recall or research the history of his own thread.

              Kevin, you said “The new argument that government can regulate corporate purchases of political advertizing [sic] is entirely about protecting incumbents from criticism”; I didn’t disagree as to Dem motives now, but simply said “the argument against allowing corporations to speak (why does NYT get special treatment?) is 100+ years old” and referred to your proto-fascist Teddy Roosevelt.

              September 10 at 7:29pm ·
            • Tokyo Tom “I agree that states have a right to regulate corporate behavior. I oppose the Incorporation Doctrine.”Glad we agree on the first point; on the second, with the exception of Citizens United (on the First Amendment), much of the history of extending Constitutional rights to corporate “persons” has been of “Incorporation” — viz., making the Bill of Rights applicable to state and local governments through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Corporations now have fourth amendment safeguards against unreasonable regulatory searches; fifth amendment double jeopardy and liberty rights; and sixth and seventh amendment entitlements to trial by jury.

              You oppose these extensions to state-made corporations, presumably, Kevin?

              Then you also OPPOSE the Supreme Court’s SUMMARY extension of its new First Amendment doctrine to the STATES via the 14th Ad “Incorporation” doctrine, in the 2012 Montana case, American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock?

              If you are, then I commend you — other than your failure to point it out to people on this thread.

              http://thehill.com/…/234515-supreme-court-reaffirms…

              September 10 at 9:44pm · Edited ·
            • Tokyo Tom Brett: “You’re claiming that society would necessarily not be ordered in a certain wayin the absence of a state, when there’s no reason that it couldn’t be.”No, I’m not; I’m just saying that corporations are made by governments and have rights granted by governments, and observing that these are rights that you and I don’t have — owners of unincorporated businesses don’t have limited liability to persons who they may injure, we die, etc.

              As Marshall said in Dartmouth: “A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it either expressly or as incidental to its very existence.”

              September 10 at 8:00pm · Edited
            • Tokyo Tom “in Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), Chief Justice Marshall spoke of the shareholders’ rights in considering the College’s claims.”

              
              You speak with great authority of matters that Marshall doesn’t address in his opinion. His chief point is to determine that the grant of Dartmouth’s charter was a CONTRACT among the Crown, the founders (donors) and Trustees — not a trust with fiduciary obligations:“This is plainly a contract to which the donors, the Trustees, and the Crown (to whose rights and obligations New Hampshire succeeds) were the original parties. It is a contract made on a valuable consideration. It is a contract for the security and disposition of property. It is a contract on the faith of which real and personal estate has been conveyed to the corporation. It is, then, a contract within the letter of the Constitution, and within its spirit also ….”
              http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17/518…

              September 10 at 8:09pm
            • Tokyo Tom “The 14th Amendment applies to Americans.”

              Due Process and Equal Protection apply to “persons” (there were plenty of non-naturalized Chinese, and the Amendment also had to clarify state and federal citizenship), which is how railroad and other corporations have been able to escape the states and capture the feds.

              September 10 at 8:13pm
            • Tokyo Tom “The reasons there’s a move to deny that corporations have rights are two:”And then there are those who want to breathe real meaning back into “federalism” and states rights, and to end the conflation of corporation=business and crony capitalism=capitalism. 

              The key to regaining control over our lives from Big Brother and Big Corporations isn’t the Federal government, but by reining in corporations/revising corporation laws state-by-state.

              September 10 at 8:19pm
            • Tokyo Tom HEY THREAD FOLLOWERS —

              
              Kevin indicated above that, because he opposes the 14th Amendment “Incorporation Doctrine,” he “agree[s] that states have a right to regulate corporate behavior.”…

[cross-posted from the We Build Our Society FB group]

What is a “drone corporation”?

I don’t wanna know — I just want to pretend that I need Govt to SAVE US! from “business” and “free markets”.

http://www.slideshare.net/BobMonks/what-is-a-drone-corporation

“Corporations “un-owned” by their shareholders—corporate “drones”—are far worse corporate citizens and have significantly lower average shareholder returns than firms in which owners still exercise authority over management”

http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/monksanddr.oneceos05062013/

“First, corporations have ascended to levels of unprecedented power in the United States, thanks in large part to legal rulings. The Supreme Court’s decision in the 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, for example, removed virtually all limitations on corporate political spending—a “grotesque decision,” rightly judges Monks. Second, the leaders of the largest and most powerful corporations in the U.S. (ExxonMobil, IBM, and General Electric top the list) have never been less accountable to shareholders. This is because of weak boards and the movement of large ownership positions to passive institutional investors, among other things. The result is “drone corporations,” in which “manager kings” have free rein to pursue their own self-interest. Monks puts more than half of the Fortune 500 among their numbers.

“The dangers in such a situation are obvious. Monks offers up a litany of them, including the gutting of the political system, regulatory abuse, tax avoidance, the mistreatment of U.S. workers, obscene CEO compensation packages—and the list goes on.”

http://www.strategy-business.com/blog/In-Drone-Corporations-Self-Interest-Prevails?gko=cda90

“What makes a corporation a drone corporation?

“By drone corporation, I mean one in which there is no element of effective ownership to monitor or to restrain the exercise of power by the corporate executive,” Monks told Corporate Crime Reporter in an interview last week.

Most major American corporations are drone corporations.

“I would say that about 60 percent of the biggest ones are,” Monks said. “Companies like General Electric. Exxon. IBM.”

Name some that aren’t drones?

“Microsoft, Berkshire Hathaway, Google, Apple,” Monks says.

The key characteristic of a drone corporation?

“Drones were more likely to externalize liability,” Monks said. “In comparing drone corporations to non-drone corporations, we discovered that the drone corporations were distinctly more likely to externalize liability. They were distinctly more liable to be indicted for criminal activity. And the extent of their criminal fines were significantly larger than those for the non drones.”

“There are now a significant number of drone corporations that use the violation of criminal law and the fines and penalties that result as a sales expense that on balance they have concluded is worthwhile.”

“This is true for companies like Pfizer in the pharmaceutical industry. And it seems to be a policy that British Petroleum has followed. They are prepared as a matter of management policy to conduct themselves in such a way as to violate criminal laws, to accept criminal penalties, and then continue to violate criminal law. That seemed to be substantially more prevalent in drone corporations than in non drone corporations.””

http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/monksanddroneceos05062013/

I haven’t been in communication with anti-IP stalwart and occasional sparring partner Stephan Kinsella for some time (I lost my appetite for his hostility), but I saw him recently on Facebook, where he had reposted a review he had done of the movie “Avatar”; as I had liked his review, I stopped by to say hello. [Note: my various #Avatar-related posts, from my blogging/commenting days at the Mises Institute, are here: http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/?s=avatar.]

What follows are his Facebook post and our ongoing dialog to date (some other persons also appear; cross-links after the name); stay tuned!

1. Kinsella (Feb 12 at 10:54 pm)

I confess, I am not the a very good movie reviewer. When I occasionally do one, they start looking dated within months. Anyway, I remember this one from 2009. I got tons of grief for it from fellow libertarians, e.g., if I recall, Michael Barnett.
…
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/avatar-is-great-and-libertarian/

2. TokyoTom (Feb 13 at 2:52 pm)

I didn’t give you any grief about it, Stephan – in fact I praised you for it – but then I’m a good statist, like you:
http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/2009/12/22/envirofacist-avatar-comments-quot-avatar-quot-resources-property-rights-corporations-government-enabled-theft/

3. Andy Katherman (Feb 13 at 11:51 pm)

Great movie review Stephan. I wrote something very similar back in 2010 on my blog (http://www.libertyforlaymen.com/…/natural-law-take-on…). Mind you, I was in my anarcho-libertarian “infancy” and more of a minarchist/Constitutionalist back then.

It’s funny James Cameron is probably more of a pinko-commie-ish-enviornmentalist than a libertarian, but I had the same reaction in that he actually presented a brilliant case for the necessity of property rights and lockean homesteading than pretty much any other movie that comes to mind… all the while doing it with great visual effects and a pretty decent plot!

4. TokyoTom (Feb 14 at 8:32 am)

Andy, Cameron wasn’t presenting a brilliant case for the necessity of property rights and lockean homesteading, but an allegory for the reality of corporate resource development around much of the world where native title is ignored, and a fantasy of natives fighting back. Of course it’s a more tangled reality, with governments frequently involved, wanting royalties, and arrogating rights to balance interests. BP and the Gulf of Mexico and the Kochs, Albertan oil sands and Keystone, for example.

5. Kinsella (Feb 14 at 8:43 am)

why add the word “corporate” Tom? What does that add to anything. There is nothing inherent in corporations that makes them more likely to violate rights. It’s just a form of business organization.

6. Andy Katherman (Feb 14 at 3:30 pm)

Disagree “TokyoTom”. I concede Cameron is probably an eco-nut of the “watermelon” variety (green on the outside, commie red on the inside) and has disdain for commerce, free markets, and “Capitalism” (properly understood)… and may not even care about property rights. But, the movie really is a terrific demonstration why property rights are a vital normative concept to reduce conflict over scarce resources. And, it also provided a case why aggression is Bad and why self-defense of homesteaded land/property/resources (Home Tree) is good and JUST. Yes, it is an allegory and it gets a bit weird at times (mystical-ish) but so what. It’s a frickin’ movie not a revisionist documentary. I still hold it is a great work of fiction and a mostly libertarian one at that.

7. Kinsella (February 15 at 12:32am)
Tom has long been a gadfly type. He supports all manner of unlibertarian proposals, but wants to fly the libertarian radical flag, and of course people like him start to feel uncomfortable so they start attacking anyone wiht principles. They basically become useless nihilists.

8. TokyoTom (February 17 at 12:01pm)

Stephan, that last comment is a very impressive demonstration of confused, unprincipled, unconstructive blatheration. It’s the kind of reflexive, self-satisfied hostility I expect to see of statists, but am a bit embarrassed to see from self-ascribed ‘anarchists’/libertarians. Nice show.

9. Kinsella (February 17 at 12:03pm)

apparently the existence of principled libertarians drives the pragmatists and minarchists and middle-of-the-roaders nuts.

10. TokyoTom (February 17 at 12:04pm)

Andy, thanks for the comment. Dunno why you feel the need to bash Cameron as a “watermelon” “eco-nut”, when he has made it clear in other contexts that he is standing up for the rights of native peoples.

The struggle he addressed in Avatar is still very much underway; see this from recent news? “To get the gold, they will have to kill every one of us”

11. TokyoTom (February 17 at 12:08pm)

Stephan suggests that “There is nothing inherent in corporations that makes them more likely to violate rights. It’s just a form of business organization.”

I imagine Stephan can likewise not see the moral hazard trainwrecks that have also been set in motion by governments insuring deposits, protecting the shareholders of listed companies, owning and developing resources, or in regulating on the basis of pollutions or public health and safety, either.

12. Kinsella (February 17 at 12:12pm)

Governments violate rights when they insure deposits. You see, Tom, that is what libertarians are against–aggression, rights violations. People who privately organize their business arrangements in a certain way do not inherently or necessarily do this. See, so it’s irrelevant whether there is a “moral hazard” or not. Libertarians are not opposed to “moral hazards.” We are opposed to aggression.

13. Kinsella (February 17 at 12:16pm)

And the state does not “protect shareholders.” I have explained this in depth already. http://www.stephankinsella.com/…/kol100-the-role-of…/

and http://www.stephankinsella.com/…/kol115-mises-canada…/

14. TokyoTom (February 17 at 12:26pm)

Stephan suggests that I am a “gadfly” “unlibertarian” who “attack[s] anyone wiht principles” and who is a “useless nihilist” whom he has “principled libertarians” (AKA, himself) has “drive[n] nuts.”

I think that, unfortunately, what we have here is Stephan demonstrating the roots of property lie not in principles, but in the reflexive, bristling defense of what people (individuals and groups) regard as valuable enough to defend.

Calm down, Stephan.

15. TokyoTom (February 17 at 12:52pm)

Stephan is the kind of Bootlegger-Baptist critic who himself is a vociferous Baptist who is uncomfortable looking at how Govt sets up the Bootleggers who are gaming the system.

In free, voluntary markets, there is no Get-Out-of-Personal-Liability-for-Harms-Caused-to-Others-Free Card.

Limited liability for shareholders is a state-granted favor that is demonstrably at the bottom of the dynamic of people forever running to a gamed “democratic” government to make Govt make its creations behave more nicely (with the regulations then serving to protect the big, to limit competition, and to fuel corruption and further govt capture). As soon as governments began creating corporate monopolies and/or limited liability cos, then then judges followed suit by rejecting strict defense of property in favor of a pollution-/corporation-favoring “balance” of equities that Block noted.

16. Kinsella (February 17 at 2:28pm)

I explained in detail in the talks and blog post linked, why this is wrong. There is no reason to assume passive shareholders ought to be liable for torts committed by others. In a private law society, there is no reason to think shareholders would be liable in the first place.

17. TokyoTom

Stephan consistently attacks arguments I don’t make. It must be because he is more principled than I am:
http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/?s=limited+liability+kinsella

18. Kinsella (February 17 at 2:51pm)

Tom, you just stated your view that state limited liability for shareholders is some kind privilege. that implies it is giving someone a limitation on liability that they otherwise would have in a free market. It’s not a privilege unless it changes the situation.

19. TokyoTom (February 17 at 2:56pm)

Stephan: “In a private law society, there is no reason to think shareholders would be liable in the first place.”

In a private law society, one finds ALWAYS individuals and associations of individuals who may negotiate liability caps with voluntary counterparties, but remain potentially personally liable up to the remainder of their personal assets for harms that their activities (and those of their agents) caused to others.

While the persons who actually directly caused harms would of course be liable, their principals would try to limit their own potential exposure by either closely managing their agents or making sure that others were independent contractors.

Stephan defends a state-created order where it is now extremely difficult, if not impossible, for us (and tort victims) to determine WHO in fact acted and is responsible for vast harms, such as those produced by BP, WVa’s “Freedom Industries”, TVA, TEPCO and the like. Instead, Stephan grotesquely calls polluting companies “victims”.

20. Dan Cotter (February 17 at 3:17pm)

Does anybody else find it strange when people write their comments as if they are speaking to an audience rather than just directly speaking to the person they’re conversating with?

21. TokyoTom (February 17 at 3:44pm)

Dan, I’ve been talking with Stephan Kinsella for several years – putting me a ten-foot-pole distance has too often been one of his penchants, because his principles mean I stink. We’ve had a bit of a hiatus, so when I visited here, you can see that I addressed him directly; he shifted to the third person here: https://www.facebook.com/nskin…/posts/10151972701413181….

22. Kinsella (February 17 at 9:22pm)

haha, are you really criticizing me for using third person…? come on dude.

23. Kinsella (February 17 at 9:25pm)

“remain potentially personally liable up to the remainder of their personal assets for harms that their activities (and those of their agents) caused to others.”

This is almost right. You are liable for harms (some types anyway) caused by your *actions*. (“activities” is intentionally vague)

But shareholders do not act to cause the harm caused by employees of the company they have stock in.

“While the persons who actually directly caused harms would of course be liable, their principals would try to limit their own potential exposure by either closely managing their agents or making sure that others were independent contractors.”

Calling shareholders “principals” is question-begging. They are passive. I have explained this. So have other that I linked to–e.g. rothbard and pilon and hessen.

“Stephan defends a state-created order where it is now extremely difficult, if not impossible, for us (and tort victims) to determine WHO in fact acted and is responsible for vast harms, such as those produced by BP, WVa’s “Freedom Industries”, TVA, TEPCO and the like. Instead, Stephan grotesquely calls polluting companies “victims”.”

How is this supposed to be an argument that shareholders are causally responsible for torts of employees? Everyone seems to simply assume this respondeat superior type vicarious liability.

24. TokyoTom (Feb 19 at 4:52pm)

“‘activities’ is intentionally vague”

This is intentionally hair-splitting obfuscation; one “acts” – we call what people do both “activities” and “actions”.

– “shareholders do not act to cause the harm caused by employees of the company they have stock in.”

It is not my premise that they always/necessarily do — though of course, sometimes shareholders may be actively involved in torts tied to the business activities conducted by the corporation they own shares of. When judges “pierce the corporate veil”, they essentially treat shareholders as principals/partners/sole proprietors.

– “Calling shareholders “principals” is question-begging. They are passive. I have explained this.”

Suggesting I was calling shareholders principals is either stupidity or a deliberate misreading; I was clearly referring to private law orders/contractual arrangements outside of corporations, not state-made corporations: https://www.facebook.com/nskin…/posts/10151972701413181… (PS–I really don’t like this attack style, but perhaps tit-for-tat is the best approach with anarchists who prefer to set examples of disrespect.)

But yes, of course now, within the state-made corporate form — and especially within listed companies, shareholders MAY be (but are NOT necessarily) “passive”. But this is itself quite problematic, though not my chief point.

– “How is this supposed to be an argument that shareholders are causally responsible for torts of employees? Everyone seems to simply assume this respondeat superior type vicarious liability.”

You attack arguments that I do not make. This is your style is your wont, Stephan — I find it wanting. I have NEVER argued that “shareholders are/should be causally responsible for torts of employees” or just “assumed respondeat superior type vicarious liability”.

Partners and sole proprietors were/are not deemed automatically responsible for torts committed by their employees, yet the risk and expense of potential lawsuits has always served to have them pay attention to risks that their employees and agents might harm others. An artificial state-made liability cap freed shareholders from downside risks, and incentivized blind eyes to practices that were costly to others.

It is clear that respondeat superior doctrine was expanded judicially and by law as firms left the realm of private businesses and became favored creatures of the state.

I am glad you are paying some attention to questions of individual responsibility, though of course you have NOT done so consistently, when you persisted in calling “BP” a “victim” and ignoring the corporate problem of discerning who it is who acts:

“It is one of the salient features of corporations that they confuse themselves and everyone else as to WHO, precisely, is responsible for their actions and the harms they cause others, and it is time for Austrians to examine such features closely. – See more at: More about “the biggest victim”, BP, and how we can help it end its “victimization”

Poor statists! If we close our eyes tightly enough, we can see clearly that Corporations are innocent VICTIMS, of governments that foist on them meaningless grants like limited liability & IP, and of malevolent, grasping citizens

Thanks for playing, and for your decent Avatar post.

25. Kinsella (Feb 20 at 2:24 am)

“It is not my premise that they always/necessarily do — though of course, sometimes shareholders may be actively involved in torts tied to the business activities conducted by the corporation they own shares of. When judges “pierce the corporate veil”, they essentially treat shareholders as principals/partners/sole proprietors.”

I am at a loss to identify the coherent libertarian principle you are trying to invoke. Who cares about the modern positive state law of ‘piercing the corporate veil,’ for example–what possible relevance has this for justice?

“Suggesting I was calling shareholders principals is either stupidity or a deliberate misreading;”

oh, i assure you, I am merely stupid, not dishonest.

–Wait.

“I was clearly referring to private law orders/contractual arrangements outside of corporations, not state-made corporations: ”

Wasn’t clear to me, kemosabe, but then I don’t have your IQ or whatever.

“Partners and sole proprietors were/are not deemed automatically responsible for torts committed by their employees, yet the risk and expense of potential lawsuits has always served to have them pay attention to risks that their employees and agents might harm others. An artificial state-made liability cap freed shareholders from downside risks, and incentivized blind eyes to practices that were costly to others. ”

What does this frenetic screed of incoherent babble have to do with libertarian principles? Answer: not much.

“It is clear that respondeat superior doctrine was expanded judicially and by law as firms left the realm of private businesses and became favored creatures of the state. ”

So… you are in favor of respondeat superior. well Rothbard, Pilon, Hessen and I are not. Congratulations on your glomming onto the state schema.

26. TokyoTom (Feb 20 at 5:35 pm)

You disappoint by never failing to disappoint, Stephan.

1. “I am at a loss to identify the coherent libertarian principle you are trying to invoke. Who cares about the modern positive state law of ‘piercing the corporate veil,’ for example–what possible relevance has this for justice?”

You are at a loss to understand the libertarian principle that a man — even a shareholder — might be called to account for his own acts? I agreed that shareholders should not be liable qua shareholders, and simply indicated that they might be liable based on their own actions. Corporate “veil piercing” is justified if based on a fact-finding that a shareholder directed a tortious act.

2. “Wasn’t clear to me, kemosabe, but then I don’t have your IQ or whatever.”

Real gentlemen don’t find admissions of error so difficult, and sneering, gratuitous contempt and off-handed offensiveness so easy. Whatever.

3. Me: “Partners and sole proprietors were/are not deemed automatically responsible for torts committed by their employees, yet the risk and expense of potential lawsuits has always served to have them pay attention to risks that their employees and agents might harm others. An artificial state-made liability cap freed shareholders from downside risks, and incentivized blind eyes to practices that were costly to others. ”

You: “What does this frenetic screed of incoherent babble have to do with libertarian principles? Answer: not much.”

Kindly demonstrate that this is both babble, and babble not related to libertarian principles. Austrians are keenly attuned to moral hazard, and I was describing what I perceive as dynamics, not a principled position on liability rules (though LvMI has published pieces calling for a prohibition on corporations in the banking sector). But if I recall correctly, you too have indicated that you oppose the state structuring of/stamp of approval on corporations.

Your own frothing has nothing to do with libertarian principles, and in fact demeans them.

4. Me: “It is clear that respondeat superior doctrine was expanded judicially and by law as firms left the realm of private businesses and became favored creatures of the state. ”

You: “So… you are in favor of respondeat superior. well Rothbard, Pilon, Hessen and I are not. Congratulations on your glomming onto the state schema.”

Congrats on another false and unjustifiable conclusion. Par for your course. Austrians Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Block, Cordato etc. all describe what they discern of the dynamics of human action within institutional structures; please congratulate them too for glomming onto the state schema.

Ad hom is a shameful game, Stephan. It discredits your good work that you that you thrill to it so much.

Cross-posted from the “we build our society” group on Facebook:

Sadly, it seems that most if not all of the progressives here want to deny what cannot be denied: that corporations exist only because they are made by acts of legislative power of Governments. They also want to deny that the special characteristics that Govt give to “corporations” are the very attributes that lead to harms to others/social ills that continually fuel more regulation of corporations by governments.

It’s hard to discern why they have these views–perhaps, because they are so ingrained in seeing Govt as their sole savior in fighting against corporate Frankensteins–but they are clearly incorrect, as a legal and historical matter.

Be that as it may, as a matter of understanding and attacking the roots of our problems, it behooves progressives to investigate and understand how government and corporations shape the incentives and influence the behavior of the people who find themselves within them.

Not only do corporations exist only because of Govt, but it is clear that the reasons why corporations play such negative roles in society and have corrupted Govt are their state-granted characteristics that would NOT exist in a “free market”. Sole proprietorships, partnerships, associations and co-operatives do NOT have #LimitedLiability, unlimited lives, unlimited purposes, and the businesses do not have legal entity status different from the owners.

Fixing our society requires fixing corporations; here are some useful reads:
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability…/
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/…/Hx_Corporations_US…
https://www.amacad.org/…/13_spring_daedalus_GomorySylla…
http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/?s=limited+liability

The fact that now corporations are easily made does not alter their essential nature as creations by Governments. But even if you want to play that game, the fact remains that to fix our problems we need to reform the building blocks of heavily Govt-influenced “capitalism”. If we don’t we are simply disempowering ourselves, while growing a fascist, job-destroying corporate police state.

http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/2011/12/15/occupy-shallow-obtuse-39-bleeding-heart-39-libertarian-missed-block-facilely-blames-left-corporatism-dear-left-corporatism-fault/

[Note: Cross-posted from my HLS blog.]

When Larry Lessig launched his “Anti-Corruption Pledge” last year, I commented on the Wiki page he set up for it, and left a copy in an earlier blog post.

Larry responded the next day. I copy here both his reply and my counter-comment:

But even if Limited Liability is a more fundamental problem, which I’m not convinced it is, but if: You still need the means to address it, which you don’t have till you address the money problem first. Lessig 10:44, 5 March 2012 (EST)

Larry, thanks for your comment, but I’m not sure I follow you. I think it is a fundamental mistake to ignore that corporations are created in states, despite their tendency to accept if not push for the federalization of corporate law.

Sure, we can try to address money in campaigns at a federal level, but that’s no reason to turn our back on the leverage that we have in fighting for more responsible corporations – and corporate owners. It’s alot easier to win at least one small victory when you’re also fighting in 50 smaller fora rather than just one big one. TokyoTom 14:44, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

I refer to the very recently-launched “Anti-Corruption Pledge” here, which is the latest project by prolific Larry Lessig, now a Harvard Law prof and head of a corporate reform center there (and whom I have introduced and discussed in a number of preceding posts).

Larry further describes the purpose and motivation of the Pledge at his blog. (I note that I’m strongly in favor of pledges, as I noted in this blog post discussing the Kochs.)

I left the following comment on the discussion page of the wiki that Lessig created for The Anti-Corruption Pledge:

Larry, you aren’t really attacking the chief problem, which the role that STATE-Created limited liability corporations play in centralization and aggrandizement of power in Washington, which then further attracts rent-seeking by increasingly anonymous (who owns and runs these corporations, anyway?) organizations that wish to use a bloated government to receive favorable inside deals and to raise barriers to entry in their respective markets.

Corporations drive the growth of government because their LIMITED LIABILITY aspect means government protects shareholders from liability in the event of tort damage to workers/others/society. Citizens tired of holding the bag then must continually push legislatures and courts for “reform” that perversely helps to entrench the largest firms against newcomers.

Corporations are not simply the “Health of the State”, but they’re created in STATES, which accordingly MUST be a main venue to seek to rein them in. States can stop creating limited liability companies, can deregulate for non-limited liability firms (where owners retain a large tail of risk), etc.

http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/?s=limited+liability

Anonymity is not per se bad – the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers were written anonymously – it’s the anonymity afford to those whom have already received important government privileges (viz., limited liability) that renders them and their agents unaccountable that is the problem.

Thus I don’t see that public funding or limiting and requiring transparency of your broadly worded “political expenditures” (contributions? campaign ads?) really address the root problem.

Fortunately, there are 50 states in which to start campaigning for responsibility owned businesses whose owners are NOT protected by governments from the communities in which they operate.

Large, entrenched public companies are already seeing across-the-board declines in profitability and market capitalization (ask Robert Monks); they can be brought down by Schumpeter’s process of “Creative Destruction”.

From a tweet I ran across:

https://twitter.com/#!/LJSearles/status/117494404415107073

From a September 20 blog post at CorpGov.net by James McRitchie (emphasis added):

Recently, ICGN held their annual conference in Paris. …

Another truthsayer at the conference was Robert A.G. Monks, whose L’Appel can be read as quickly as fast food but provides nutritional value of a much higher order. Bob lays out a number of observations. I’ll just list a few:

• Our governance systems are chartered and enforced (if at all) nationally, but an increasing percentage of total assets are held “off shore.” Owners, rather than governments or other entities, appear to be the only viable candidates to enforce corporate governance standards.
• Our framework is based on the assumption that shareowners engage and hold management’s accountable for their performance… but the majority of shareowners are passive because of conflicts of interest, cost and collective action problems.
• This leaves public, union and SRI funds as the only ones left on the field, depriving the market of mainstream experience and insights and it allows shareowner activism to be trivialized and dismissed as representing only special interests.
• Wall Street captured a generation of bright professionals that might have gone to more productive employment and investment banking moved from the periphery to the largest industry in land. Money and power; plain and simple greed.
• Corporations insist that government meet their demands, even if they run counter to the interest of citizens… they exercise unusual veto powers.
• The average investor thinks of “business” as an impersonal entity owned by the very rich and managed by over-paid executives. “But the hundreds of millions of shareholders – most of whom are of modest means – are the real owners, the real entrepreneurs, the real capitalists under our system. They provide the capital…”
• The same corporations act as investment banker and financier to companies whose shares it holds in its fiduciary portfolio. “The fundamental law of trusts is unenforced and is treated as merely a verbal inconvenience.”
• Those in power “prefer the present ownerless situation where corporate executive power is accountable to government which it easily dominates.”

Monks contends what may be at risk is the survival of democratic capitalism and the sustainability of the traditional real return on equity investments of 6% plus or minus per annum in excess of inflation. He calls for mobilizing the voting power of institutional shareowners through:

1. an educational program and
2. a political action program

Of course, talking at ICGN, he hopes members will take on these tasks in a more meaningful way. The US Chamber of Commerce intervenes in scores of court cases, such as the SEC’s proxy access rules. Maybe ICGNcould do the same.

There can be no effective corporate governance, until, unless and to the extent that the major institutions become involved. This will not happen until and unless there is a formal legal policy that shareholder activism in the public interest and is the national policy.

Government policy would help, but as Monks also points out, corporate executives exercise unusual veto powers over governments and can “off shore” assets, jobs, and even corporate identity.

I’d love to see ICGNtake up the task of education and political intervention. However, as someone with little influence with ICGN or its member funds, I’m putting my efforts into organizations and social media mechanisms aimed at the individual investor. Individuals create and guide organizations. Institutions may only push for better, less conflicted corporate governance when individuals push them to do so. Perhaps by pushing from both the top and bottom we can somehow meet with success in the middle. … However, if even 50% of retail shareowners were voting, I would bet they would also start putting pressure on the conflicted institutional investors like the mutual funds and university endowments that Monks is focused on.

Internet tools like CorpGov.net, ProxyDemocracy.org, MoxyVote.com, Shareowners.org and ProxyExchange.org have been built on shoe-string budgets. A small amount of money pumped into them and perhaps some consolidation of efforts might go a long way. Also promising would be a push toward an open system of client-directed voting. See comments to the SEC from VoterMedia.org and from James McRitchie. I hope readers will also support such efforts.