TT's Lost in Tokyo — by TokyoTom

I copy below some more of my dialogue with Stephan Kinsella and others, regarding Jeffrey Tucker‘s unhappiness that not all libertarians are cheerleaders for our current model of “capitallism” (see my eariler posts on “scrupulosity“).

Stephan does a great job at wrestling with strawmen, attributing to me positions that I have expressly argued against, and questioning my forthrightness and my dislike for the state:

{Folks apologies if you are seeing disordered paragraphs; the blogging software seems to do that frequently when one copies in various blocks of text. I have added a few numbers to make chronological order clear.)

1.  Stephan Kinsella June 5, 2011 at 8:33 am

Calling shareholders “passive” might be a fair representation of the existing, government-created system – especially for listed, “public” companies, but that’s pretty much my point. This is NOT true of partnership or other traditional types of business organization,

See Hessen et al.–it is true of limited liability partnerships, where you have limited partners who are passive, and general partners who are active.

But even for a general partner–why is he automatically liable for what torts employees commit? this hoary, feudal notion of respondeat superior–you are responsible for your “servants’” actions–is a bit insulting and elitist.

” and the grant of limited liability itself deliberately signals shareholders that they can turn a blind eye to activities that profit the company while posing costs and risks to others.”

If they would not be liable in the first place then it’s not a grant, any more than you, as a Walmart customer, are “granted” limited liability just b/c the law does not currently make you jointly reponsible for torts committed by Walmart employees. I suppose you could argue this “grant” of limited liability to you as customer makes you as customer turn a blind eye to its risky activities. As I said in my post, this broad view of causal responsibiltiy would make everyone in society liable for everyone else all the time, without exception, which is why I analogized it to socialized medicine/Obamacare.

Sure, it’s probably not now “fair” to passive shareholders to “attribute vicarious liability to them … for torts committed by employees”, but that is both a strawman and besides the point. The point is that the government grant of limited liability MAKES A DIFFERENCE;

You keep saying it’s a grant but this is question begging, as this assertion assumes that absent this legal rule they would be liable vicariously under some libertarian principles of causation. I deny that they would. So if you say it’s grant you are arguing dishonestly by assuming your premise.

the strawman is that I am certainly NOT proposing a new rule that shareholders be assigned liability for acts by corporate employees, but simply that the limitation on liability be eliminated

WElt he state should be eliminated of course. There should be no laws whatsoever regarding corporations. I agree with this. The limitation of liability law should be abolished. I of course agree, which shoudl be apparent from reading what I have written since unlike many left-libertarians who are vague and maunder and equivocat and are disingenuous I try like Rothbard to be clear and upfront, and am very openly anti-state. I simply disagree with people like you who explicitly or implicitly propose that in a free society it would be appropriate to automatically hold the equivalent of passive shareholders (whatever you call them) vicariously responsible for others’ torts. If you think removing limited liability would make a difference, this is your implicit view. This is what I disagree with; your distractions seem to be an attempt to cloud the water to make it hard to see that this issue is at the heart of our disagreement.

– just as other grants by the government of liability limits (nuclear power, offshore oil drilling, and pollution permitting generally) should be eliminated.

Yes, I agree, but that is a bad analogy b/c those ARE real limits that do have an effect, unlike the shareholder case which does nothing IMO but ratify the situation that would obtain anyway.

Your assertion that limited liability of shareholders “would also be present in a free society in which private contractual ‘corporations’ arose” is totally unsupported. Can you point to where Rothbard, Hessen or Pilon argue that private contracts that limit liability of investors against voluntary creditors could serve to limit their personal liability against INVOLUNTARY creditors, viz., tort victims?

It’s not contracts that do it. It’s simply the fact that tort victims can pursue the tortfeasor, and the shareholder is not the tortfeasor; and there is no ground for making the shareholder liable vicariously for the employee’s torts.

And yes, see: Rothbard on Corporations and Limited Liability for Tort; Legitimizing the Corporation and Other Posts; Defending Corporations: Block and Huebert; Pilon on Corporations: A Discussion with Kevin Carson; Corporations and Limited Liability for Torts; In Defense of the Corporation

For example, see pilon http://www.stephankinsella.com/wp-content/uploads/texts/ga-l-rev-1979_6.pdf pp. 1310-. for Hessen, see this excerpt,http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2004/04/Hessen+corporation+tort+liability+excerpts.pdf , pp. 18-20
and http://www.stephankinsella.com/2010/02/rothbard-on-corporations-and-limited-liability-for-tort/ — this last post also quotes Rothbard: “Similarly, if a corporate manager committed a wrong and damaged the person or property of others, there is no reason but “deep pockets” to make the stockholders pay, provided that the latter were innocent and did not order the manager to engage in these tortious actions.”

So, Rothbard, Hessen, Pilon–all hold that passive shareholders are not automatically liable vicariously for torts committed by employees, any more than limited partners would be.

Just as you, surely, have no objection to private agreements between parties to protect the information created by one of them (private “intellectual property”)

I would not call it that. “Intellectual property” is a propaganda term invented recently to justify state grants of monopoly privilege (patent and copyright)http://blog.mises.org/14914/intellectual-properganda/

but simply oppose state-created IP, so too should you (as a lawyer!) be able to understand that in principle, of course, I have no objection to contract-based companies, but oppose the obvious and important favors granted by the state in the case of all corporations?

You are confusing the case for contractual limited liability of shareholders for contractual debts, with the case for shareholders not being liable vicariously for others’ torts. The latter is not based on contract.

2. Not to be missed is that the grant of limited liability is extremely important and consequential:

See: The Cliff Notes version of my stilted enviro-fascist view of corporations and government – TT’s Lost in Tokyo http://bit.ly/9oBkC7

It has allowed owners to divorce themselves from formal reponsibility for the acts of their agents/employees, to divorce themselves from the communities in which their firms act, and to dodge claims of moral responsibility.

So what? this is not a justification for a law. It’s just some “policy” musings.

So we are left with massive corporations which are massively entangled with government

That’s b/c there is a state (which you favor, not me; I’m the anarchist), not b/c of the way people would create firms on the free market

and are powerful buyers of favors, which citizens forever clamor for “more control!”, and which lack any clear locus of responsibility — and in which we find anarchist libertarians like yourself and Lew Rockwell acting as their lawyers, and calling them and their shareholders “the biggest victims” (not the little people on the short end of the stick of projects like Gulf oil drilling, nuclear reactor meltdowns or even mundane health/air/water/soil damage from pollution)

Emotivism. You are not making an argument. It is not unlibertarian to have a view as to who is victimized by a given state policy. In fact the central state whose legitimacy you yourself support claims the overlord/landlord status in the offshore continental shelf; BP held a lease. It was your central state that is the landlord whose tenant had the oil spill. By your principles of vicarious responsibilty where you want to willy nilly say some old lady holding a single share of BP stock should be personally liable for this tort, of course the landlord should be too, right? I.e., your state is responsible, so why are you blaming me for favoring private investors in a free society, when you support the very state’s existence, the state that is responsible for the BP spill in the first place? And of course the nuclear industry is heavily distorted and corrupted by the state; Chernobyl was teh state’s fault, and the entire meltdown-prone western nuclear industry was corrupted by your beloved state for military reasons — instead of safe Thorium we needed the current system to produce nuclear weaponshttp://www.libertarianstandard.com/2011/04/01/the-states-corruption-of-nuclear-power/

So blaming this on private investors is rich. It’s the state’s fault, as usual. You think that getting rid of one of the few state laws that happens to mimic the likely result on a free market (limited liability for passive shareholders) is what you should focus on?!

As Mises long ago noted, moral hazard matters.

This is how statists and law professors reason. It is not how libertarians reason. We believe in individual rights–property rights–and have principles. we don’t run around “weighing” various “policy reasons” to tweak and fine tune statist positive law.

3. While in principle any partnership can keep going even when one partner dies or decides to leave and new partners are added, surely you are aware that this is a very cumbersome process, not in small part because of the concerns that the partners and its lenders, suppliers and customers all have about who, precisely, is managing the business and who has liability for potential losses?

Nonsense. SEe the Hessen excerpt above, p. 17, regarding how partnerships or firms can easily make the firm effectively immortal by use of continuity agreements. This is not hard.

Just as for limited liability,

More question begging, as I have explained

the grants of legal entity status,

this is not a gift but an unnecessary status that the state uses to justify regulation and double taxation of shareholders. In a free market firms would not have legal personality nor do they need to. Hessen has already explained this almost 30 years ago.

unlimited life,

See Hessen, last mention above. This can be done contractualy.

unlimited purposes and the ability to own subsidiaries are all substantial AND consequence-laden gifts from the state.

The purpose is whatever the shareholders agree to. It has nothing to do with the state just as marriage should not. Ownign a subsidiary is not a privilege but just another contractual private scheme. Nothing you described is a gift fromt he state. All these features are doable privately and contractualy, except for entity theory which is not a gift but a penalty.

Show me a partnership that has any of these, without a grant from the state.

This is like asking me to show you a 100% reserve bank. They are not used now b/c the state’s fractional reserve/guaranteed system outcompetes it. If I want a perpetual firm I just use a corporation b/c the state provides this mechanism. In a free market people would have to do it privately contractually, on their own; I have no idea if they would be called limited partnerships, LLP, LLC, or what. Who cares? IT’s just a detail. Get the state out of the way, and we’ll see.

Waht i object to is your clamoring for shareholders to be liable, when you have no theory whatsoever undergirding this.

The state creation of corporations has do much to muddle who, exactly, is responsible for injuries to third parties caused by “the corporation”.

So what, really? In most cases the corporation pays the victim, and has assets to do so.

Getting rid of limited liability would do much to provide moral clarity,

Again, this is question begging, b/c you are assuming there would and should be liability for shareholders absent the limitation of liability law.

I would note that, just as if deposit insurance were eliminated, market actors would step up to advise on which banks are safe and to provide deposit insurance, so too would insurers step up if limited liability were ended.

We are NOT talking about bringing down capitalism.

I know, but this still does not justify your claim that shareholders should be liable vicariously for the torts of others. What is your theory of causal responsibility? I have tried to sketch one out — http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae7_4_7.pdf — and see no way to hold passive shareholders liable; confirming the reasoning on the same lines of Hessen, Pilon, and Rothbard.

TokyoTom June 5, 2011 at 10:00 am

3. TokyoTom June 5, 2011 at 7:14 pm

In addition to the comment that I blogged the other day regarding Jeffrey Tucker’s June 2 post, Scrupulosity and the Condemnation of Every Existing Business, I posed a question to Jeffrey in response to this further comment by him:

But Rothbard was not just an anarchist. He was an anarcho-CAPITALIST. From what I can tell, Rothbard has yet to win THAT victory among libertarians. They have learned from his anti-state writings, but have they learned from his economic writings on the absolute centrality of capital accumulation for the advance of civilization?

My question:

Stephan Kinsella kindly jumped in; his response to me on June 4 is here.

I use this blog post to copy my response to Stephan:

 I note my related earlier posts on deposit insurance and moral hazard:

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=deposit+insurance

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=moral+hazard

I am prompted by recent events to follow up on thoughts I emailed to Sheldon Richman a few months back:

I feel strongly that If we want to fix the country (and if libertarians don’t want to be dismissed as irrelevant/patsies for rent-seekers) we need to find ways to restore shareholder ownership of downside risk. This is the only way to back away from the destruction of communities and our natural and government commons by faceless elites through corporations – and the battle for control over Government micromanagement that so often is captured by corporations and serves as barriers to entry.

Insurers would step in to help shareholders and act as a check on management.

The states that create corporations retain power under the 14th Amendment to discriminate in favor of local, unlimited liability forms of corporation or corporations in which shares are not fully-paid up. There is nothing like a substantial risk tail to focus shareholders on managing management.

In addition, allow me to summarize thoughts that I have posted extensively elsewhere. The state has institutionalized moral hazard and exacerbated principal-agent problems via the grant of limited liability to corporate shareholders. This grant is at the core of why investors chose to us the corporate form (as opposed to traditional partnerships and older versions of corporations where shareholders retained substantial risk), and is something that cannot be obtained merely by voluntary transactions – as it involves future potential involuntary victims of acts by the new corporate legal entity (lenders and other parties can of course agree in advance to liability caps and recourse limits). 

This state intervention has set in motion and greatly fuelled the growth of government and battles with citizen groups over the wheel of government — battles in which insider elites, generally acting through long-lived and deep pocketed corporations that are armed with greater knowledge and cloaked with anonymity, have the overwhelming advantage. I earlier summarized these dynamics here: The Cliff Notes version of my stilted enviro-fascist view of corporations and government

As I have noted elsewhere: I am NOT arguing FOR a general rule that shareholders SHOULD be liable for corporate torts. Rather, I：

(2) note that the limited-liability corporate form has enabled risk-generation and -shifting on a massive scale, with innocent third parties frequently being stuck holding the bag (not solely when liabilities exceed assets, but more generally since the cycle of escalating government interventions to rein in corporations perversely ends up raising barriers to entry and giving corporations regulatory “rights to pollute” that curtail liability even when sufficient assets are available),

(3) argue that libertarians should reconsider the grant of limited liability for torts (as opposed to limited liability as to those who contract with the corporation on a voluntary basis) not simply because it is clearly non-libertarian to begin with, but because it has had profoundly perverse consequences (consequences at a serious enough level that state-loving libertarians in effect concede simply by troubling themselves to argue against curtailing limited liability),

(4) note that the most efficacious way to roll back the regulatory state lie in the direction of shifting ultimate responsibility for managing risks to enterprise owners (and ending the counter-productive regulatory risk-management experiment), and

Last night I was Sleepless in Tokyo because Matt Ridley and one of his commenters rewarded, with nice words and questions, a comment I left there on his “Nuclear Crony Capitalism” post.

So naturally I wrote more.

Here’s the relevant comment thread, plus my excited scribblings at the bottom (now up; thanks, Matt!). Skip to the bottom if you’re in a rush:

Posted by, TokyoTom (not verified)

Matt, great post — but I think you’ve only barely scratched the surface on the ‘crony capitalism’ institutionalization of risk.

I’ve spent a bit of time delving into this at my blog that Ludwig von Mises Inst kindly hosts:

– Sorry, but I can’t resist asking: Feel Sorry for Tokyo Electric Power Co?, http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/2011/03/27/39-resist-feel-tokyo-electric-power/, a tribute to Lew Rockwell’s ‘Feel Sorry for BP?’)

– Institutionalized moral hazard: Fun with Nuclear Power in Japan, or, prepare for a glowing twilight, with scattered fallout in the morning:  http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/2011/03/26/institutionalized-moral-hazard-fun-nuclear-power-japan-prepare-glowing-twilight-scattered-fallout-morning/

– My posts exploring the ramifications of the state grant of ‘limited liability’ corporation status: http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/?s=limited+liability

 – The case of BP: http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/?s=BP+gulf

 – Not surprisingly, similar issues arise with respect to the rest of the Govt-licensed energy sector and climate: http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/?s=climate+liability

 Thus small things contribute to the Road to Serfdom: http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/2011/03/27/rot-core-prophetic-words-hayek-grim-threat-posed-erosion-quot-market-morals-quot/ and http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/?s=prophetic+words+from+hayek+grim+threat

I hope you’ll take your concern for nuclear crony capitalism even further.

TT

Wednesday 30th March 2011 – 04:39am

Posted by, Matt Ridley

Tom,

very interesting. Thanks. will follow up.

Matt

Wednesday 30th March 2011 – 04:54am

Posted by, Robin Guenier (not verified)

Matt:

This is an intriguing post …. If one agrees (and I do) that the moral hazard enjoyed by financial institutions is deplorable, then logically it’s impossible not to take the same view of crony capitalism and nuclear power. And, as j ferguson and Tom have pointed out, it doesn’t end there. For example, I’ve been involved with the UK defence industry and recently with the appalling NHS computer system – in both cases, I’ve seen huge overruns and vast sums wasted. Classic examples, I suggest, of “government and capitalists colluding against the market”: neither the government nor its suppliers are penalised; all the pain is passed onto the public. And, if that is unacceptable – and surely it is – it’s hard to dispute Tom’s conclusion that the state grant of limited liability may be the problem: “one of the key roots of snowballing corporate statism”.

And yet … and yet: the industrial revolution and the huge benefits it has provided to society were built on the foundation of limited liability. Moreover, many major projects that would not have been implemented without an alliance between capitalists and government have turned out to be widely beneficial despite seemingly inevitable delays and cost overruns.

Is there a distinction to be drawn and, if so, where?

Robin

Wednesday 30th March 2011 – 07:32am

Posted by, Matt Ridley

Robin,

Yes. I agree with both points you make and see what you mean about limited liability’s role and the importance of govt-driven infrastructure. Compulsory purchase for railways and canals springs to mind: easier in Birtain than in France.

Not quite on the same lines, but sometimes I get criticised for being too hard on government and I reply that if Carnegie and Rockefeller and Maxwell were bad, then they weren’t half as bad as Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot.

I hope to get time to dig further into this issue.

Matt

Wednesday 30th March 2011 – 10:59am

My follow-up thoughts (readers may be disappointed that I haven’t loaded this down to cross-references to relevant posts from this blog):

Robin, your statement that “the industrial revolution and the huge benefits it has provided to society were built on the foundation of limited liablity” is a statement of fact – not one necessarily of causation – but so has been our financial house of cards: banks are corporations, shareholders have limited liability (and megabanks are public cos in which shareholders are even further removed from oversight), and depositors are insured by Uncle Same. As a result, depositors don’t bother to check out what a crapload of risk that traders and execs are piling on in order to get bonuses, and Uncle Sam and his legions of wizards set up regulations that the smart boys at Goldman and lawyers figure out how to finesse to load up ever more risk at the lowest possible capital – BANG! And all thanks to the wonders of institutionalized misincentives!

Sure, we got wonderful things from complex organizations, all of which remain in check somewhat by competitions. But there’s been a lot of abuse, alot of risk-shifting, alot of Superfund sites, alot of barriers to entry raised by the very regulations whose purported intent is to rein in the bad behavior, massive statism, and a ball and chain of costly and intrusive IP legislation and enforcement.

I’ve given a very short summary of the dynamics at this post but it’s a fairly obvious and understandable game of whack-a-mole, where government and the big boys – with their unlimited lives, purposes, facelessness, deep pockets and revolving doors – always seems to benefit while ordinary citizens and smaller firms and potential rivals get whacked.

It is very clear that limited liability of shareholders is a gift from government at the expense of un-consenting creditors (‘victims’ IOW), and thus is a subsidy from the public as a whole to the wealthier classes who owned corporations and still by and large are the shareholder class.

Corporations used to be very rare – the grants have a very dubious history, typically one of false justifications of offering a ‘public good’ in exchange for monopoly rights. The owners of very limited life, limited purpose firms somehow always managed to get the special deal extended. So we got bigger firms and more corruption, and labor unions and then regulations and workers and citizens finally started to get fed up.

The widespread statism and government-provided social welfarism – now falling into cynical kleptocracy and fuelling a breakdown in initiative, integrity and other virtues Hayek saw are necessary for market-based wealth generation to works to work – we now see are part of the price we’ve paid. The other part of course is damage to peoples’ lives, property, communities and to whatever public or community property that corporations can get their hands on and strip, without have an owner’s incentive to balance possible revenues over the long run.

Is this kit and caboodle a necessary part of “capitalism”? I don’t think so. Wall street banks and investment firms were private partnership for most of their lives, Amex was a listed corporation who owners had UNLIMITED liability, and Lloyds of London itself was not a firm but a private MARKET of names who all had unlimited liability. Many firms used to have only partially paid-in shares, so that managers had a call in case more capital was needed for new projects or to pay off debt.

Just because we’ve democratized corporate formation by opening the floodgates of socializing risk to anyone doesn’t mean ways can’t be found to put an end to institutionalized moral hazard. Eliminating unlimited liability would shift risk and responsibility for oversight back to a conveniently truant shareholder class from government and the public at large. It would of course mean that people not in a position to evaluate risks would be less likely to invest, making firms work harder to earn trust and get capital. Credit evaluation, rating agencies and insurers would all compete to step into the breach and to lower and spread risk.

Better-managed firms are more profitable than the big Frankensteins we have lumbering around these days; while reform would not happen overnight, it is not only desirable but possible. Firms whose shareholders bear the risk that they may be held liable for damages can be expected to be more cautious and thus could be exempted from the regulations that have been found needed for the Frankensteins. Thus both risks and barriers to entry could be lowered, and consumers and could determine what works best. Other initial steps could be to encourage firms whose shareholders have only fractionally paid-in shares. In the US, at least, corporations are creatures on state law, so just one state is needed to start such an experiment (which would be possible and protectable under the Constitution).

Well I’ve run on quite a bit in my excitement. My sincere apologies! Let me toddle off for a wee bit of sleep.

Tom

Matt Ridley, British author of The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves, and populat TED presenter “When Ideas Have Sex“), has a couple of blog posts out in response to Japan’s troubled post-earthquake and post-tsunami nuclear reactors owned by TEPCO.

In a somewhat ironic post, “Nuclear Crony Capitalism“, Ridley first notes that the troubles at TEPCO’s Fukushima plants have caused environmentalist George Monbiot to change his mind about nuclear power  — and to SUPPORT it, as demonstrating the low risks of nuclear power. (I find this perverse by both Monbiot and Ridley, as radiation releases from four of the reactors have already done substantial damage to people, property and livelihoods in the Fukushima region, as well as to cause grave concerns in Tokyo and indeed, globally. Moreover, the situation is not yet stabilized, strong earthquakes continue, and strong radiation in the vicinity of the plants is seriosuly hampering efforts to regain control over the plants and ope-air spent fuel rod pools.)

Yet despite his views on the safety of nuclear power (he noted a few days ago in the WSJ that much safer designs may be available, and that the TEPCO designs are a product of the Cold War and nuclear bomb production designs), Ridley castigates Japan’s government and nuclear power industry.(emphasis added) [readers, html is a pain. If the quote isn’t here, it’s the italicized text that wants to be at the bottom.]

What worries me is the economics of an electricity generating industry that requires massive capital projects, whose costs usually over-run and whose costs per kilowatt hour are roughly double those of the newest gas turbines. … But a perceptive article by Shikha Dalmia explains where nuclear’s flaws come from — its symbiotic relationship with government. Nuclear power requires, demands and gets subsidies of many different kinds.

That’s exactly the problem with crony capitalism, whether in finance or energy or anything else. The `market’ and `capitalists’ are not on the same side and against `government’. No, its government and capitalists colluding against the market, which is on the side of the people. The `financial market’ proved to be no such thing; it was a casino for favoured clients run by central banks. The `energy market’ is no such thing. It is a scheme run by governments for favoured clients in the nuclear, renewable and environmental-pressure group industries.

As Adam Smith so astutely observed,

The proposal of any new law or regulation which comes from [businessmen], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

Nice to see Ridley both recognizing the corrupt and skewing dynamics, AND taking not merely government but the industry itself to task, TEPCO and its finaciers are, after all, real people who have moral responsibility for their own actions – right? – whether they are aware of such responsibility or not.

Unfortunately, Ridley, like Dalmia, fails to extend his analysis to the state-created corporate structure itself, which systematically shifts risks from shareholders and managers to the public at large, particularly via the grant of limited liability to shareholders, which reduces incentives for shareholders to care about risks to others and exacerbates the “agency problem” which leaves managers as essentially unsupervised actors who typically do not bear liability for so-called “corporate torts” – thus leaving the “corporation” as a legal fiction without a clear locus of responsibility or liability.

The grant of limited liability is of course the driving feature for choosing the main corporate form over other alternatives (Amex was long a coproaton whose shareholders had unlimited liability), and why corporations establish subsidiaries (US nuclear plants are virtually all held by different legal entities), and why traditional partnerhips have pushed for LLC and LLP entity forms that retain partnership-like tax treatment but no personal liability.

One hopes that some day our leading lights will devote a little time to exploring the obvious perverse incentives and massive negative consequences generated by the state-created corporate form. What we have instead is a sympathy for faceless corporate “victims” of a faceless state, and a beside-the-point defense of the poor existing, irresponsible shareholders, which didn’t bargain for a downside risk. Shall libertarians forever defensd this Heads I Win, Tails You Lose mentality? Do they have so little faith that, if limited shareholder liability was NOT granted by the state, that shareholders would not increase their diligence, or engage insurers to mitigate risks?

I note that I pointed out the issue of the corporate form itself to Matt Ridley, he responded with a “very interesting”. Stay tuned!

Readers may recall my ongoing criticisms of Lew Rockwell, Stephan Kinsella and many others over their sympathy for and defense of statist mega-corporations like BP , their preference for confused attacks on “abstractions” like “the environment” (shared common or publicly-owned resources not under effective privatre control) while ignoring the role that “abstractions” like corporations playing in resolving or aggravating problems of human plan formation and conflict resolution, and for pretending that the unjustifiable state grant of limited liability to shareholders is inconsequential and has nothing to do with rapidly growing endemic/systemic corporate statism, so-called corporate “agency problems” (the struggles among, shareholders, executives, employees, and citizens groups/lawyers for control when clear owners are absent and costs/risks are externalized) and management failures in the financial industries and elsewhere?.

Clearly, the state grant of limited liability corporate status cannot be justified under libertarian principles; it was also an anathema to our Founding Fathers, who hated corporations (unlike their mistaken willingness to embed patents and copyright in the Constitution). It has long been crucial to investors choosing to incorporate (as opposed to accepting shared liability with their partners for the acts of their agents), and has had far-reaching consequences even greater than state-granted IP. Why, then, are libertarians defending ANY grants of limited liability? There are other forms of business organization available; such as sole proprietorships, classic, common-law contract-based partnerships, and “unlimited liability” corporations (American Express was an “unlimited liability” corporation for much of its history), firms whose capital is not “fully paid-in” (so that the company has a right to require shareholders to contribute more capital should existing capital be insufficient to pay debts).

In each of these cases, since shareholders have not been excused by government from potential personal liability for corporate acts (only people act, of course, but corporations have muddled all of this and become massive buck-passing machines), they retain a large tail of potential liaibility and so are all relatively incentivized to control risks that their agents may create. More exposure to risk will lead to more responsible behavior, and will abate call for more government interference. States all retain rights under the 14th Amendment to regulate different forms of business orgaizations differently, so they as well as federal regulators could lower regulatory barriers for unlimited liability corporations. 

But will capitalism collapse if voters and legislators end or disfavor limited liability corporations? Hardly: entrepreneurs, investors and shareholders might willingly choose forms of organization that do not need to be as heaviliy regulated by governments, and insurance and rating agencies would surely step into the breach with respect to the increased risk borne by shareholders – at cost of course, a cost that represents the risks that would otherwise be shifted to society as a whole. One effect would surely be a reduction in the calls by citizens groups for “corporate social responsibility” legislation.

But enough of prologue — did any readers see the rather startling – and in my mind  also rather mis-guided – piece in the January Harvard Business Review by Michael Porter (a professor at Harvard Business School) and Mark R. Kramer (a senior fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy Schoo of Government)? Entitled “The Big Idea: Creating Shared Value“, it is accompanied by an interview of Michael Porter entiled “Rethinking Capitalism“. Both are worth a review and head-scratching by LvMI and other readers.

It seems to me that Porter’s core points are the following:

The capitalist system is under siege. In recent years business increasingly has been viewed as a major cause of social, environmental, and economic problems. Companies are widely perceived to be prospering at the expense of the broader community.

Even worse, the more business has begun to embrace corporate responsibility, the more it has been blamed for society’s failures. The legitimacy of business has fallen to levels not seen in recent history. This diminished trust in business leads political leaders to set policies that undermine competitiveness and sap economic growth. Business is caught in a vicious circle.

A big part of the problem lies with companies themselves, which remain trapped in an outdated approach to value creation that has emerged over the past few decades. They continue to view value creation narrowly, optimizing short-term financial performance in a bubble while missing the most important customer needs and ignoring the broader influences that determine their longer-term success. How else could companies overlook the well-being of their customers, the depletion of natural resources vital to their businesses, the viability of key suppliers, or the economic distress of the communities in which they produce and sell? How else could companies think that simply shifting activities to locations with ever lower wages was a sustainable “solution” to competitive challenges? Government and civil society have often exacerbated the problem by attempting to address social weaknesses at the expense of business. The presumed trade-offs between economic efficiency and social progress have been institutionalized in decades of policy choices.

Companies must take the lead in bringing business and society back together. The recognition is there among sophisticated business and thought leaders, and promising elements of a new model are emerging. Yet we still lack an overall framework for guiding these efforts, and most companies remain stuck in a “social responsibility” mind-set in which societal issues are at the periphery, not the core.

The solution lies in the principle of shared value, which involves creating economic value in a way that also creates value for society by addressing its needs and challenges. Businesses must reconnect company success with social progress. Shared value is not social responsibility, philanthropy, or even sustainability, but a new way to achieve economic success. It is not on the margin of what companies do but at the center. We believe that it can give rise to the next major transformation of business thinking. ….

The purpose of the corporation must be redefined as creating shared value, not just profit per se. This will drive the next wave of innovation and productivity growth in the global economy. It will also reshape capitalism and its relationship to society. Perhaps most important of all, learning how to create shared value is our best chance to legitimize business again.

An article (nay, essentially a press release) by a Harvard-related commenter at BNET (the CBS Interactive Business Netwrok) says the folllowing (emphasis added):

Few people are as associated with modern capitalism as Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter, whose theories on strategy and competitiveness have shaped the direction of countless corporations.

So his latest article in Harvard Business Review comes as a shocker. Porter… argues that companies are locked in an “outdated” approach to creating value, focused on short-term profit while forgetting what they can do to benefit society–investments, by the way, that would pay off by ensuring long-term success.

One result: People have justifiably lost trust in business and are even questioning the very notion of capitalism.

… The idea that business has sold its soul in the pursuit of quick profit is nothing new, of course. But Porter and Kramer bring to the party a wealth of knowledge on the mutual benefits derived from a linking of economic and social goals.

And they create a new vision of how to get it done, a framework they call the “principle of shared value.”

The solution “involves creating economic value in a way that also creates value for society by addressing its needs and challenges. Businesses must reconnect company success with social progress. Shared value is not social responsibility, philanthropy, or even sustainability, but a new way to achieve economic success. It is not on the margin of what companies do but at the center. We believe that it can give rise to the next major transformation of business thinking.”

Some of the other highlights:

New skills required. Leaders and managers must develop skills and knowledge that give them a keen appreciation of societal needs, the ability to work across profit/nonprofit boundaries, and a deep understanding of how business productivity serves more than shareholders.

Government’s role re-conceived. Regulators must create policies, regulations and laws in ways that support shared value rather than work against it.

Broaden the role of capitalism. Companies have taken too narrow a definition of capitalism. We should be looking to business to help solve the world’s great problems, the authors argue. “The moment for a new conception of capitalism is now; society’s needs are large and growing, while customers, employees, and a new generation of young people are asking business to step up.”

The full article is …is bound to be one of the most debated and discussed thought pieces in 2011, you’ll want to check it out.

Some argue that business has no obligation beyond serving customers, creating jobs and, yes, making a profit for stakeholders. Isn’t it enough that companies already bankroll the health benefits of millions of Americans? Are you one of these capitalism minimalists? Or does business have broader mission to improve the society in which it operates?

Anybody wanna tell Mr. Porter that we can “fix capitalism” simply by ending limited liability – leaving owners to replace society and governments as the parties most interested in making sure that corporate managers are not creating too much risk? 

Far from needing new principles, we need a revival of OLD ones – of self-responsibility, rather than government-enabled risk-shifting.

Here’s the 15-minute video:

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrsjLA2NGTU:550:0]

I can understand the desire to protect one’s business from new government carbon mandates and from noxious new regulations over all derivatives hedging purposes (seriously I can understand it, even as many on the left now harbor deep suspicions of business), but doesn’t buying control over government through the GOP kind of cut against the libertarian, free-markets message?

Koch Brothers Roundup (major news reporting on Rancho Mirage gathering)

Why can’t our supposedly adamantly libertarian billionaire Koch brothers put their money where their ideals are, say by establishing partnerships and other organizations that DON’T require government-granted legal entity/ limited liability privileges? (Simply creating obstensibly libertarian pressure groups like Cato that refuse to criticise corporate statism doesn’t count.)

Where are our leading libertarians who are forming:

• The Buck Stops Here Clubs, or Businesses for Partnerships and Personal Liability and Responsibility?
• Businesses, Shareholders, Investors and Executives Who Don’t Buy Votes, Politicians or Judges Clubs?
• Businesses that Don’t Do Business with Government Clubs?

It’s not as if government:

• MAKES investors choose limited liability corporations that mask responsibility,
• makes corporations fight for government favor, including to pretend that corporate legal entity fictions need disembodied ‘voices’, even though their shareholders, managers and employees all have their own, or
• makes prominent ‘libertarians’ do shallow, one-sided work for fairly naked corporate rent-seeking ‘Astroturf’ outfits.

(I feel increasingly grateful for the individuals who so generously devote their time and resources to LvMI! Jeffrey Tucker, are we trumpeting our own funders loudly enough? They deserve our thanks AND patronage!)

The Middle East gets its popular revolts, but we just have more elites stirring up and hiding behind decidedly paｒtisan animosity (hello, George Soros!). Alas, our tribal nature makes it difficult for us to perceive our real enemies, and inclines us to internecine warfare over the wheel of government to the hard work of building community.

For those of you who haven’t seen it, the LA Times February 6 article Koch brothers now at heart of GOP power is worth a gander and some pondering — and just a start at looking at billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch. Useful charts on vote-buying by the Kochs are here and here. I’m not an opponent of any industry, per se, or of the Tea Party movement, but there’s far too much uncomfortable truth to the Left’s criticisms of the Kochs. Why can’t they publicly criticize government and corporate rent-seeking, or work publicly to build community? The secrecy itself is poisoning the cause they profess to believe in (see more links below).

See Jane Mayer’s New Yorker piece, Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama.

Koch Billionaire Bros. and Wealthy Meet to Usurp Democracy, Greenpeace Sends Message, others Arrested

Uncloaking the Koch Brothers Trillion & Billionaire Oil Regime

Wow — The American Conservative is now running a sympathetic overview by Sheldon Richman on the “Libertarian Left” (subheading, Free-market anti-capitalism, the unknown ideal).

Have conservatives lost their senses, or have they come to realize that the statist rot at the core of American “capitalism” is growing out of control?

Even libertarians who don’t consider themselves on the left (FWIW, I consider myself as a screwed-up RIGHT-leaning libertarian) will find the piece thought-provoking and insightful.

But it strikes me as funny that, if I judge from Sheldon’s piece, Left-Libertarians have not quite focussed on how the state grant of limited liability to shareholders – something that cannot be obtained merely by voluntary transactions) has set in motion and greatly fuelled the growth of the state and battles over the wheel of government — battles in which insider elites, generally acting through corporations, have the overwhelming advantage.

I have posted extensively on limited liability; for the interested reader perhaps this post will be a quick introduction:

The Cliff Notes version of my stilted enviro-fascist view of corporations and government

For those of you who prefer to not let their fingers do the walking, as I have noted elsewhere: “I am NOT arguing FOR a general rule that shareholders SHOULD be liable for corporate torts; rather, I have：

In the not-unsympathetic hour-long presentation that BBC broadcast on January 31 (after surviving a legal challenge), climate ‘skeptic’ Christopher Monckton (the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley) says something about climate science that I can agree with and that is important:

The central question is this: it’s not whether CO2 or other greenhouse gases can cause warming, because we’ve known for 200 years that they can.

It’s not whether we are causing the CO2 in the atmosphere to rise, because we are.

The only question that really matters is, given the rate that we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, is how much warming that will cause, if it continues.

In other words, Monckton is correct that the core climate science issue is about what is known as “climate sensitivity”; that is, how much warming is going to be triggered by the rapid ramping up in atmospheric CO2 as we use fossil fuels.

Climate science skeptics like MIT’s Richard Lindzen and company adviser Pat Michaels agree and suggest that climate sensivity will be low (though in this film Lindzen rather jaw-droppingly suggests that “I can live with 5 degrees; you can live with a degrees” Fahrenheit increase in avergage global temperatures!).

The producer, Rupert Murray, suggests that the skeptics wrongly overstate their case and underplay the risks. Murray leaves unstated his premise (and that of the climate scientists he includes) that, if one accepts more conventional views of climate science, then one must also agree that government-imposed restrictions on personal freedom are necessary in order to moderate the threats posed by our use of fossil fuels.

Interestingly and sadly, rather than examining whether there may be common ground in policies that reduce climate risks, Monckton and other prominent skeptics like Lindzen and Michaels (and British commentator James Delingpole), all also appear to make the same assumption that the only possible policy responses are those that reduce personal freedom. Thus, rather than a focus on the content and merits of policy alternatives, we have a rather frantic search to find reasons to dismiss climate risks, and to question the motives and sanity of those who are concerned about them – all, of course, while ignoring the question of what economic interests benefit from the status quo. This behavior is, of course, also mirrored by many of the “warmers”; both sides have their own “Bootleggers and Baptists” coalitions lined up.

Not surprising when so much is at stake, and all are fighting over the use of government. Thoughtful people among the skeptics will acknowledge that the climate is a shared commons that can only be managed via collective action; thoughtful people among the “warmers” likewise should recognize that government itself is a commons that continues to be mismanaged for the benefit of elites and the expense of most citizens (witness our financial crisis and the BP disaster).

As Nobel Prize-winner Elinor Ostrom coninues to point out, trust is a sine qua non for effective management of common resources. Unfortunately, however, that trust is precisely what we are missing the most – and for good reason, as our politicians, bureaucrats and leading corporations have proven themselves unworthy of it.

It should not go unnoticed, however, that a policy to destroy public trust and foster our love of partisan acrimony is one that would be very effective in protecting the interests of those who benefit from the status quo. Creaming the commons while socializing risks is an inherent aspect of corporate business models (starting with the state grant of limited liability to shareholders).

Here’s a link to the video; my apologies that I couldn’t figure out how to embed it here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y5j3v

[Update: It seems that he BBC has forced the removal of all non-BBC postings of the program, and only viewable via servers located in the UK. As skeptic Anthony Watts puts it: “the BBC does not allow people outside of Britain to watch the video; some sort of cranial-rectal problem I’m told, a proxy server in the UK is needed to view it if you live elsewhere”. Here is James Delingpole’s take on the the program – prior to actually seeing it: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100074116/meet-the-sceptics-another-bbc-stitch-up/. And here is one take by a relatively perceptive viewer: http://frank-davis.livejournal.com/140337.html.]

More follow-up comments regarding on limited liability, excerpted from the comment thread to Geoffrey Allan Plauche‘s post, “Ecofascism in the Name of Fending Off Ecofascism“. Here is my first post, second post and third post.

TokyoTom September 21, 2010 at 8:40 am

Shay: “What limit is there to who all one can sue for damages? Owners, OK. Shareholders (if that term even applies to non-LLCs)? Employees? Customers?”

Your uncertainty here is a manifestation of the confused discussion over liability for “corporate torts”that Stephan Kinsella refers to. His position is that only humans act, and not corporations (though they are given “legal entity” status), so only particular persons who actually injured someone else (and those who directed/ordered their actions) should be liable for any tort – not the corporation itself (and certainly not shareholders, unless they were personally involved somehow). I agree that granting corporate status has greatly confused discussions over whom should be liable for corporate torts, and think Stephan too lightly brushes back the enormous and anonymous torts that our now massive corporations commit — precisely what individuals, for example, is responsible for the BP disaster, for the damage to health and property caused by pollution, or for injuries resulting from faulty products?

Rolling back limited liability should not mean that shareholders SHOULD be held liable for corporate torts in the same way that executives, managers and employees (the first two benefiting from company-purchased insurance policies) and sometimes lenders are; it would just mean that they would get no government-provided “get out of jail free” card. In this way, common shareholders would be put on a similar footing to partners in a partnership that acts through paid managers.

Jon Leckie September 21, 2010 at 9:10 am

Hello Tokyo, thanks for a powerful reply. …

You and I are not going to reach agreement in the short run, but it’s been interesting and you’ve given me a lot to think about. I don’t agree with you that all of the evils you identify can be laid at the feet of limited liability. I remain of the view that the abuses of the corporate form must be set against the benefits of allowing investors to mobilise capital in such a way that the downside is limited to the assets originally invested. It may ultimately be demonstrated that the abuses outweigh the upside, but from I have seen you don’t seem to acknowledge any benefits to limited liability. You also don’t seem to consider what the costs of the extra compliance and risk to investors with personal liability: I can tell you from personal experience that compliance and monitoring is not costless and that the burden can sink an otherwise profitable and socially beneficial project. You might say “Well too bad!”, but that’s lost jobs for people, that’s products that won’t be made, that’s wealth foregone.

Ultimately, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You put so much responsiblity at the feet of limited liability that I don’t think it’s unfair of me to ask for more evidence, better arguments (I may find them on further reading of your blog ). I think Stephan Kinsella’s request of you earlier on this page remains valid, to quote:

“Tom, when you say the state grant of limited liability is not justifiable, this is a… way of trying to reverse the burden of proof. This very statement is relevant ONLY if the grant changes what would be the case anyway. That is, if shareholders would be vicariously responsible under a libertarian theory of cause for torts of employees of corporations they owned shares in.”

I believe I understand your response: “no one else gets to avoid tortious liability to third parties based EITHER on the grant of limited liability of the state or by a private contract, so why should people who stand behind an LLC get to do so? The existence of limited liablity (at least vis a vis third parties) is not the default position, they’re a creation of the state.” (Is that right? I’ve tried to be fair, I’m not interested in strawmen). Nonetheless, I don’t think that is a satisfactory libertarian theory of cause for tortious liability for reasons I’ve tried to set out already (contractual liability can exist absent a state (and thus so can limited liability) how would tortious liability exist absent the state?) and so Kinsella’s request remains valid.

If you think that question is covered, my other objection remains: it must ultimately be demonstrated that the abuses outweigh the upside. The law of unintended consequences applies to every proposal for change, and I don’t think you give fair credit to the role that limited liablity entities play in an advanced economy.

I’ll come and see you at your site, or watch out for a reply here. You’ve helped me clarify my own thinking and I appreciate that a lot. Best, JL.

TokyoTom September 21, 2010 at 2:01 pm

Jon:

Thanks for your response. While my envirofascist skin remains somewhat thin, I am fine with your tone – even if I see you as exaggerating and not fully comprehending my position.

A few comments in response:

“I remain of the view that the abuses of the corporate form must be set against the benefits of allowing investors to mobilise capital in such a way that the downside is limited to the assets originally invested.”

What, if anything, is libertarian about your proposed cost-benefit calculation? In determining whether state-granted limited liability is justifiable, shall we engage in a utilitarian weighing of the advantages to investors against the disadvantages to others?

“you don’t seem to acknowledge any benefits to limited liability”

But I have; but I have also pointed out that most of the benefits could be achieved by contract. It’s the benefits that can ONLY be achieved by government fiat and at the cost of innocent third parties that I object to.

You seem to think that either the intrusion of government here is minor or the cost to innocent third parties is trivial, but I can assure you that it is not. Indeed, much of what is wrong with the US in particular and with the world more generally can be laid at the foot of wide-scale government-enabled risk-shifting and moral hazard of the type seen in grants of limited liability and the concomitant cycle of regulation (in which the losers are always a number of steps behind) that such grants have set off.

“compliance and monitoring is not costless and that the burden can sink an otherwise profitable and socially beneficial project.”

I’m quite aware that compliance and monitoring are not costless; you, however, see to think that shifting risks to others and thus easing compliance and monitoring costs IS costless and “socially beneficial”, while ignoring that there are clear winners and losers from such government favor. Did you miss the Gulf oil spill, the limits on liability, the poor planning and oversight, the lack of caution, and the costs being borne by quite a different class of people than BP’s shareholders? Of many cases of environment harms experienced throughout the US? Are you unaware of the massive and ongoing environmental damage similarly caused by “socially beneficial” oil and gas development in Nigeria and Ecuador?

You and Kinsella: “Tom, when you say the state grant of limited liability is not justifiable, this is a… way of trying to reverse the burden of proof. This very statement is relevant ONLY if the grant changes what would be the case anyway. That is, if shareholders would be vicariously responsible under a libertarian theory of cause for torts of employees of corporations they owned shares in.”

Au contraire; it’s you and Stephan who are shifting the burden of proof and trying to avoid yourselves to come up with any convincing libertarian arguments FOR the state grant of limited liability to corporate shareholders. Stephan has acknowledged elsewhere that the grant is NON-libertarian, could not be contracted for voluntarily, and that if it were not to exist that insurers would be offering to insure shareholders from downside risks, but like you stubbornly seeks to cling conservatively to a status quo that favors investors and the big government corporatism has produced.

Far from me having to make a libertarian case shareholders should be vicariously responsible under a libertarian theory of cause for torts of employees of corporations, I simply need to show that the grant of limited liability significantly CHANGES the structure of the market and the behavior of market participants. Clearly, limited liability MATTERS, as amply demonstrated not simply by looking at markets and cases where limited liability shields shareholders from damages in cases where partnerships would be liable, but also by your own deep reluctance (and Stephan’s) to do anything about it. Stephan makes a thin lawyerly dodge, while you offer utilitarian arguments.

Stephan’s desire for a libertarian theory of vicarious liability of shareholders in the case of “torts of employees” of corporations is commendable, but as I have already noted, such a desire is itself confused by the failure to recognize the state favors given to corporations and the massive scale at which they operate and can damage third persons. It appears that Kinsella would have us treat most damages caused by companies as “torts by [particular] employees”, thus denying any recourse by injured parties to corporate assets. Such an analysis may be appropriate in the case of small businesses where who acts and under what authority may be very clear (as in the case of partnerships and sole proprietorships), but hardly make any sense in the case of the large, anonymous and bureaucratized institutions that limited liability and legal entity status have directly led to.

Sorry, but it seems to me that your own approach to the issue of tort liability makes even less libertarian sense: you have concluded that in a stateless society institutions would arise only to enforce contracts, while individuals and firms would get away scot-free if they willfully or negligently harmed others. Surely a brief look at traditional societies would quickly inform you that such societies have very sophisticated and effective ways of controlling behavior that damages others.

“my other objection remains: it must ultimately be demonstrated that the abuses outweigh the upside. The law of unintended consequences applies to every proposal for change, and I don’t think you give fair credit to the role that limited liablity entities play in an advanced economy.”

Ahh, there’s your non-libertarian insistence on the need for cost-benefit analysis for a change in eliminating limited liability as to persons involuntarily injured by corporate acts again. Do I need to add up all of the people harmed in the BP spill and weigh them against the potential cost to BP shareholders?

“The law of unintended consequences” sounds suspiciously like the precautionary principle that enviros always argue for (precisely because corporations are risk-shifting machines); bravo! Actually, I’m very well aware, not only of the very central and valuable role that corporate entities play in our economy, but of all of the negative unintended consequences that the grant of limited liability (and other favors) has entailed. But far from throwing the baby out with the bath water, I see reform in this area as both a sine qua non for any meaningful effort to reduce statism and something that is eminently achievable and with a net benefit in efficiency, risk-management and, last but not least, justice.

TT

J. Murray September 21, 2010 at 9:17 am

There is no such thing as a libertarian state-granted limited liability.

TokyoTom September 22, 2010 at 12:00 am

Agreed; that’s MY point exactly.

Jon Leckie September 22, 2010 at 4:40 am

Well hang on now guys, there’s very much a thing as libertarian state-granted limited liability – aren’t you conflating liberatarianism with anarchism? The two are not the same and I can find no definition of libertarianisn that requires the abolishment of the state.

There very much is such a concept of state-granted limited liability, it’s just that Tokyo sees proponents as being obligated to justify its continuance PRECISELY because it is a gift from the state, whereas – on this point – I view it as also capable of existing absent the state through private contract. Tokyo then asks how private contract can exclude third party tortious liability, and I respond with how can tortious liability even EXIST in a stateless environment? (Which might be a stupid question, but no one’s yet said anything on it, it must be a question addressed in the literature somewhere).

Tokyo, one discrete question on your response above: you say it’s non-libertarian to weigh costs and benefits, summing this up as a crude utilitarianism. Why is that not an approach I can take? I mean, on the BP example, one might read your post and wonder whether BP merrily skipped town, having destroyed the gulf completely, taken no remedial action and paid no billions of dollars into a compensation fund, plus remaining exposed to private civil claims? Ask British pensioners whose payments are reliant on BP’s dividends whether they’ve suffered or not. Yes those living around the Gulf have had a hell of a time, but that’s not enough of an argument: accidents happen. BP is being punished. So it’s not a crude balancing act between (a) environment destroyed, people suffering and (b) callous shareholders laughing to the bank. I’m saying that limited liability may be responsible for a vast amount of economic activity that otherwise may not take place due to the unlimited risk of personal liability. Surely you need to take this into account, no?

Oh, and I need to ask you to do me a favour: please don’t accuse me of supporting big government corporatism. I may not be an anarchist, but I am as resolutely against corporate welfare and crony capitalism as anyone else who enjoys these pages. Supporting limited liability as a vehicle for mobilising investment is NOT the same thing as supporting GE or GM, please acknowledge this.

J. Murray September 22, 2010 at 5:30 am

I’m not really confusing libertarianism with anarchism here. A state-granted limited liability would be violating the life, liberty, and property angle. I don’t see libertarianism compatible with a state granting immunity to a party for any wrongdoing. The general argument between minarchism and anarchism in libertarian circles is whether the state should exist to punish those who violate those three key tennents, not whether the state exists to protect the wrongdoer against just punishment.

Jon Leckie September 22, 2010 at 6:24 am

Thanks, J. Murrary: that’s helpful. It’s probably apparent enough, but I’ve a lot more reading to do and am picking up a lot as I go along.

Does it affect your view at all to stress that limited liability does not preclude recovery? There’s no immunity: but recovery is limited to the assets held in the vehicle and if damages are in excess of the value of those assets, the entity is dead. There seems to be remedies available beyond banning limited liability to prevent/minimise undercapitalised entities engaging in behaviour likely to give rise to torious liability (contrast BP with Mom&Pop LLC running a local hardware store): I’m really struggling to get across the line on limited liability as ipso facto in breach of the life, liberty and property standard (thanks again for clarifying the perspective there though). Maybe one day I’ll end up in his camp, I’m keeping an open mind (as much as one can try!). Lots to think about.

PS. Without a state to impose liability for and punish tortious acts against the property rights of another, how would liability for the tortious act be enforced against the tortfeasor?

TokyoTom September 23, 2010 at 12:30 pm

Jon, as for “how can tortious liability even EXIST in a stateless environment?”, I clearly addressed this above where I said:

Sorry, but it seems to me that your own approach to the issue of tort liability makes even less libertarian sense: you have concluded that in a stateless society institutions would arise only to enforce contracts, while individuals and firms would get away scot-free if they willfully or negligently harmed others. Surely a brief look at traditional societies would quickly inform you that such societies have very sophisticated and effective ways of controlling behavior that damages others.

Maybe this post with Bruce Yandle’s thoughts on how humans manage commons might be a good start: http://bit.ly/8V2q6R

Utilitarianism presumes both that it is possible to measure and aggregate conflicting preferences and that it is acceptable for government to do so and to intentionally benefit particular groups of individuals at the expense of others. Austrians say that the first is impossible and libertarians say that the the second violates basic principles.

As for BP and other corporations, I have little sympathy for shareholders, who have the benefit of their bargain (including dividends in good times that cannot be clawed back when risks materialize and the company is unable to fulfill its obligation), while persons injured by corporate actions have little or no ability to bargaining in advance whatsoever, or to get ready to get harmed. (The case of BP is compounded by the fact that government, by claiming to own “public” resources, deprives the fishermen harmed of any control over their livelihoods including any property right that they can claimed was harmed.) This just scratches the surface; I have commented extensively on BP on my blog and on other pages here: http://bit.ly/crTbEA

Yes, I see that you are “saying that limited liability may be responsible for a vast amount of economic activity that otherwise may not take place due to the unlimited risk of personal liability.” I see we agree that limited liability is very important – great! – but you seem to think either that, somewhat magically, such limitations on liability make risks simply disappear, or that such a shifting of risks by investors in particular firms (and the investor class generally) to innocent third parties class leads to improved risk management, or that such shifting or risks by those who fund and benefit from them to innocent third parties is justified on utilitarian or some other unspecified principled grounds. Surely you can see that “the unlimited risk of personal liability” is the default situation without state intervention?

By the way, I completely accept your good faith; please accept my pokes simply as attempt to get you to reflect on the implications of your positions.

You might think that you don’t “support[] big government corporatism”, but surely you ought to realizing that limited liability is a key factor in the rise of statist corporations. Supporting limited liability as towards innocent third parties might be effective in creating a vehicle for mobilizing investment, but it is also clear a vehicle of massive risk-shifting, theft and at destroying community in favor of fundamentally amoral governments and corporations.

You suggest you don’t support GE or GM, but if you can accept and support limited liability, then surely also you must accept its consequences.

TT

TokyoTom September 23, 2010 at 12:48 pm

“Accidents happen”? So do systematic trainwrecks due to mismanagement of risks.

Could government interventions that enable risk-shifting in banks, securities firms and corporations (and subsequent bailouts) have anything to do with engendering such mismanagement?

Massive kleptocracy in the third world differs little from what we see at home.

Beefcake the Mighty September 22, 2010 at 9:51 pm

“I agree that granting corporate status has greatly confused discussions over whom should be liable for corporate torts, and think Stephan too lightly brushes back the enormous and anonymous torts that our now massive corporations commit – precisely what individuals, for example, is responsible for the BP disaster, for the damage to health and property caused by pollution, or for injuries resulting from faulty products?”

What does this question have to do with limited liability? Why should shareholders be any more responsible for the disaster than people who filled their tanks with BP’s gas? They both gave the the company money, after all.

I’m having a hard time seeing what point, exactly, you’re trying to make here (beyond anti-corporatist bromides).

TokyoTom September 23, 2010 at 11:20 am

Lord Bungulous Bringer of Beefcake:

What, those who simply buy a company’s products should be treated on the same basis as those who invest in the company’s business model? Are you trying to clarify, or obfuscate? One offers money in exchange for goods or services, the other offers money for the profits he expects to gain from the company’s business model.

I’m having a hard time seeing what point, exactly, you’re trying to make here (beyond pro-statist-corporatist bromides).

What does the question of whether corporations should have any vicarious liability for the actions of its employees and agents have to do with limited liability? Thanks for the opportunity for me to be a bringer of light, but it’s not that complicated: without limited liability and corporate “legal entity” status, investors and corporate managers would care to make sure that employees are careful. The limited liability shield makes it the interest of shareholders NOT TO CARE, and the interest of managers to obscure who is responsible. Because incorporations make possible large, impersonal businesses without a clear locus of responsibility, on the behest of victims seeking recompense for damages suffered, courts tend to hold “the company” responsible.

In short, the confusion that Stephan raises and professes to be concerned about is a product of the very state grant of limited liability that he – like you – thinks is too unimportant to question, but important enough to defend.

Why don’t you and Stephan start a libertarian fan club for essential government interventions? You can start with limited liability for corporate shareholders generally, add the specific caps on liability granted to the oil+gas industry and nuclear industry, and include the preemption of strict common law protection of property from pollution, in favor of federal preemption and rights to pollute.

Or you could think a little more seriously about how we could replace corporate risk-shifting machines and the whole mass of federal and state regulation that are purported intended to curtail such risks (but instead create barriers to entry and ensconce management from shareholders, thus introducing another layer of moral hazard) with internal risk control and risk control via insurers acting for shareholders.

A number of conservative commentators have made the radical suggestion that banks, securities firms and offshore oil+gas cos should be allowed to act only through partnerships (or other unlimited liability entities); they are thinking too modestly and have overlooked the limited liability for corporate shareholders that drives our whole regulatory edifice and has set off our escalating cycle of statist rent-seeking and corruption.

TT

Beefcake the Mighty September 23, 2010 at 11:26 am

“One offers money in exchange for goods or services, the other offers money for the profits he expects to gain from the company’s business model.”

Yeah, what a critical distinction. Shocking I didn’t see it previously; thanks so much!

TokyoTom September 23, 2010 at 1:09 pm

Not sure whether I should be pleased that my comments are so pedestrian, or disturbed that you are content with government interventions that help to erase moral distinctions.

Prior to the creation of corporations, it was clear who was doing what … thank goodness for anonymity and lack of personal responsibility!

TokyoTom September 23, 2010 at 9:39 pm

[I am]  thankful that you provide an opportunity for me to help others examine the growing rot set off by the very non-libertarian grant of limited liability to shareholders regarding injury to involuntary third parties:

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/02/26/the-curse-of-limited-liability-wsj-com-executives-traders-of-big-financial-corporations-generate-risky-businesss-while-smaller-partnerships-are-much-more-risk-averse.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2010/06/29/limited-liability-financial-crisis-and-bp-someone-else-sees-the-obvious-quot-black-swan-quot-of-executive-trader-moral-hazard-after-investment-banks-went-corporate.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2010/04/22/finally-an-lvmi-commentator-points-out-the-elephant-in-the-room-effective-reform-to-rein-in-rampant-moral-hazard-at-banks-means-removing-limited-liability.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2010/08/18/in-a-shocking-moment-of-honesty-conocophillips-ceo-says-offshore-oil-isn-t-economical-without-government-gifts-of-limited-liability.aspx

TT