young grasshopper
Smash Ace
Hi, I'm making this thread in response to this post from
Erimir
:
As for corporations, a voluntary society will allow people to voluntarily associate, sharing economic assets and risks with one another. However, a corporate "entity" that can assume legal responsibilities would not be acceptable, because the individuals comprising the corporation cannot be relieved of their legal liabilities and responsibilities. Doing so would be analogous to saying that your car had personhood, running someone over, and then blaming it on the car.
As for land ownership, property rights naturally flow from the principle of self-ownership. A person owns themselves and their labor, and thus are entitled to own whatever natural resources they directly improve using their labor. These are logical rights that I assert exist in principle whether they are respected or not. In the absence of a coercive state, there would still be "governing" services that would seek to protect rights and settle disputes for their clients. The main difference is that you wouldn't be forced to subscribe to such services under the threat of physical violence. This is what might be called a "private law society". I fully understand that a society free from all crime is rather Utopian, and I am not blind to the reality that property rights will be violated to one degree or another in any society. What I am arguing for is a society that refuses to legalize and legitimize crime.
Firstly, my point was not that shutdowns are caused by government being too big, but rather are worsened by the size of government, due to the fact that a larger government has more relying on it. Thus, more is neglected in the case of a government shutdown.Well, it sounds like you're some kind of anarcho-libertarian, which is a whole other discussion*.
But the point is that government shutdowns are not caused by big government, because they are practically unheard of outside the US, and the US has a smaller government (relative to its size) than many countries. That point is unaffected by your other policy preferences.
*I do have a couple questions about this system of "voluntary contracts between private individuals", that would perhaps be better answered elsewhere.
The first can be answered yes or no: does this mean you want the elimination of corporate entities (i.e. corporations), given that they only exist as a legal artifice created by government? Discussing the implications of either answer would require going off-topic though.
The second is more complicated and best discussed elsewhere, but you can create a new thread if you're interested: where does land ownership come from under this system? Or, will there be no such thing as land ownership? (I think the lack of a satisfactory answer to this question basically undermines the whole libertarian ideology.)
As for corporations, a voluntary society will allow people to voluntarily associate, sharing economic assets and risks with one another. However, a corporate "entity" that can assume legal responsibilities would not be acceptable, because the individuals comprising the corporation cannot be relieved of their legal liabilities and responsibilities. Doing so would be analogous to saying that your car had personhood, running someone over, and then blaming it on the car.
As for land ownership, property rights naturally flow from the principle of self-ownership. A person owns themselves and their labor, and thus are entitled to own whatever natural resources they directly improve using their labor. These are logical rights that I assert exist in principle whether they are respected or not. In the absence of a coercive state, there would still be "governing" services that would seek to protect rights and settle disputes for their clients. The main difference is that you wouldn't be forced to subscribe to such services under the threat of physical violence. This is what might be called a "private law society". I fully understand that a society free from all crime is rather Utopian, and I am not blind to the reality that property rights will be violated to one degree or another in any society. What I am arguing for is a society that refuses to legalize and legitimize crime.