On måndag 23 juli 2001 01.28, Jerry Mitchell <email@example.com> wrote:
>You bring up a valid point here, and one I've thought about a few times. How
>is it that a business can belong to noone in particular? Is this a state
>imposed distortion? Would this be possible in a "Minarchist" state? If I
>want my company to go from my sole ownership to some multiple ownership
>situation, sure I could just get all parties involved to sign a contract.
>But who then is responsible if the company hurts someone? All the owners I
>would assume at that point. Corporations seem to be sheltered from
>responsibility a great deal (which I assume is the point of making one). Is
>there an alternative to this that doesn't involve the initiation of force on
The principle of limited liability corporations is central to capitalism, and cannot/shouldnt be abandoned even in an minarchist state. When starting a company you need both an idea and some starting capital. Often, the investor is not the same person as the entrepreneur (and is usually not involved in running the company). The basic principle of corporate act is that the investor may loose the amount of money initally invested, but not more that that. He is not held responsible for the company's actions.
In order to protect suppliers and customers, the company is required to have a capital stock. The capital stock is a measure how much you can trust a company. Corporations aren't "sheltered" anymore than you and me, they are fully responsible for their actions. (Unless of course the board did something wrong, in which case they are the ones responsible).
Corporations are legal entities that should exist in minarchist states. They are based on contracts between the corporation and the state, just as any other first class citizen of that state.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:54 MDT