longhair75, like LHofD said, your question isn’t quite practical. The United States already has an industrial base and an installed infrastructure. The OP clarified in post #6:
Are you talking about bancruptcies and mergers? I am under the impression that forced government removal of corporate status is rare.
I’m talking about criminal proceedings that would either seize and dismantle a company or force it’s shareholders to begin accepting liability for company actions. Obviously something would also have to target the guilty managers- barring them from future jobs, etc. That sort of thing is already in place.
When I think over the concept I am trying to imagine better ways to apply criminal responsibilty to the abuse of the “rights” by some corporations. Fines just get added to the balance book. Even if a company is ruined by it, the business culture sees it as a “bad gamble”. A lawyer can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe a more liberal use of current anti-racketeering laws might be a way accomplish something in this regard.
Does this address your point?: Also in my dream, the process for setting up new corporations would discourage fly-by-nighters who set up throwaway numbered corporations.
A practical libertarian is simply someone who realizes that the US constitution exists as it does, the US people currently have to political views that they do, and that it does no practical good to wish they were different, if we want them to be different we will have to figure out ways to convince people they should be different.
Therefore, your question about colonizing other planets isn’t very interesting. There are no such planets to colonize, there are no unclaimed areas on earth to colonize, there is no place on earth where only like-minded libertarians can go and be free of the interference on non-libertarians.
We live on a planet with social democrats, communists, authoritarians, Islamacists, republicans, democrats, dictators, radicals, liberals, conservatives, apathists, and on and on. They aren’t going away, we can’t rewind history, we’re never going to convince everyone to radically restructure the global order, we aren’t even going to convince 50% of America to vote for a national libertarian candidate, let alone a Libertarian party candidate.
So your thought experiment isn’t very helpful, at least in the context of this thread. It just doesn’t matter whether or not a libertarian society could build a global industrial infrastructure from the ground up and whether that society would be better or worse than what we have now, what matters is whether or not a more libertarian world order would be beneficial to our already existing global society.
Well, that’s just great. So as a shareholder of Enron, you get doubly screwed – once by Enron management destroying the value of your shares, then again by your vaunted criminal proceedings.
When you’re done destroying the capital markets, what wil be your next project?
Incidentally, your notion of “dismantling a corporation” is misplaced. When a company dies (by, say, filing for a Chapter 7 liquidation), its assets and employees don’t magically disappear. They get bought and hired by other companies. Unless the government is going to house all those physical assets in one place and pay all those employees not to work, you’ll never dismantle anything – you’ll just shuffle things around.
The only difference is in who gets paid. So are you going to screw all the creditors of a dismantled company? Forget the shareholders; they’re last in line to be paid on a dissolution anyway – what about those who have lent the company money? Does the government step in and screw everyone who had any kind of dealings with the company whatsoever?
my apologies once again. i attempted to illustrate my point froem a more broadly painted theoretical perspective than i should have.
friend lemur866
so, how do you see libertarianism as benefiting global society?
lh
Dewey: Would you agree or disagree with the statement “There’s currently a lack of accountability for corporations in the United States today.”?
I don’t paint in brushstrokes that broad. If you’d like to posit a particular scenario, have at it.
It’s hard not to paint in broad brushstrokes when we’re talking about something as abstract as how corporations would function in a society being altered by a “practical libertarian”. 
I think that increasing corporate accountability would be an absolutely crucial part of any changes that made our society more Libertarian. The concept of a legal entity that shields people from the consequences of their actions seems antiethical to the Libertarian goal of using greater responsibility to temper greater liberty. Imagine what would happen if the government regulatory agencies (OSHA, the EPA, the FAA, etc.) were no longer around to enforce misbehaving corporations, AND you had our current legal system, where corporations are almost impossible to kill. If an individual repeatedly steals, he’s probably gonna go to jail and it’s effectively gonna make him rebuild his life when he gets out. If a corporation repeatedly steals (due to, say, deceptive pricing, routine billing “errors,” etc.) they’re gonna have to be dealt with in civil court, typically they’re able to write off any judgements against them as a cost of doing business.
I think a lack of corporate accountability (where “corporate” means what it currently does) in a Libertarian system would be a major problem.
I asked what you think about corporate accountability in the present system because it would explain why you seem a bit incredulous when the topic of revoking charters, removing liability shields, etc. is brought up–if you think the current accountability system is fine, or even too tough on corporations, you’d be less likely to think that the system would need to be changed in Practicallibertaria.
No, from a practical perspective those accountable are the firms management. The shareholders risk their equity, I’d say.
Otherwise, from a practical standpoint, one is looking at (literally) millions of trials for each and every problem.
I think we got sidetracked on the issue of shareholder accountability. I believe that shareholders should be willing to face the loss of their investment with no whining if they back the bad horse. But the management who perpetrated the crime (fraud or whatnot up to criminal actions of any sort) should face real and honest criminal trials with serious punishments.
Seriously, does anyone actually think Ken Lay will do time in Marion for his actions?
And I know I’m missing questions. If I miss your remind me. I (cross my heart) will provide some sort of answer for every question.
I asked for specifics on what the “minor (and some major)” legal system reforms that you’d like to see are…
This is a good summation, Lemur. I approve and endorse.
The question becomes the convincing. That will almost certainly require the formation of a new party occupying the uneasy center in which people search for the middle ground of freedom and society standards.
Tough spot to define. Black and white is MUCH easier to sell to the electorate.
Point of fact, even in the status quo the corporate form does not “shield people from the consequences of their actions.” You’re always liable for actions you yourself undertake. A corporate officer, director or employee who personally performs egregious acts can be named individually in a lawsuit or indictment. Limited liability only affects passive shareholders whose only connection to the corporation is owning shares.
My comments have nothing to do with the current system being “fine” and everything to do with the extremely negative effects that would be caused by the proffered “solutions.” The cure suggested is far, far worse than the disease.
And here we disagree. You say that humans are predators. Certainly. But we’re also one of the most social of creatures. And its this social impulse that leads to the creation of governments. Someone up there argued that governance started with people with big clubs enforcing their will upon others in a form of despotism. But my reading has led me to believe that before that tribal societies existed in loose organizations of discussion. People sitting around, chewing the fat, and trying to figure out which direction to take. And it’s THIS concept that informs my opinion that governments are fundamental to human nature.
At the end of the quote above you make the statement ‘which could have been prevented had someone stepped in’. This is an unenforceable concept because that’s the point at which their can be no agreement. How, where, why, when should ‘someone’ go ahead and ‘step in’? Ask 20 people get 20 answers.
But that’s theory. And you know I’m after something else.
In practice can we get rid of such limitations? No, of course not. What’s required is finding the minimum number of options for the government to have to intervene. And a reasonable citizenry should be able to define that point in such a way as to permit the maximum chance for mistakes to be made. A more ‘fatherly’ government can all too easily overcommit to the concept of protection and thereby limit the amount of experimentation and individuality available to the citizenry.
Oh, and we’ve now passed the number of posts for the first thread. Thanks!
This is, of course, the status quo.
Although one wonders at your “no whining” concept. Should Enron’s shareholders sit by quietly and take it in the ass? They’ve been defrauded, after all; indeed, they are the principal victim of Enron’s chicanery, since the accounting fraud Enron perpetrated was designed to fool equity investors into thinking the shares were worth more than they actually were. Shouldn’t they have the right to pursue whatever remedies they can?
As do I. And as they in fact do. This is again the status quo.
I’m not sure where Lay will serve his sentence, but I’m pretty damn sure he’s going to prison.
His and Skilling’s trials are scheduled to start this summer, barring additional delay. Given that a chorus of people on these boards predicted that Lay would never be indicted, much less taken to trial, I feel safe in taking the contrarian view.
Perhaps that’s a slight over-reaction to my comment? Destroying capital markets, sheesh.
AFAIK, Enron was guilty of fraud and illegal market manipulation. Fines and management censures are appropriate there. I’m talking about corporations that routinely show wreckless disregard for human life, environmental law or illegally influence legislators/judicators.
I’m also not saying we should suddenly start hauling away shareholders in chains if their company is polluting a lake. I would believe in allowing a company to try to reform it’s practices. Eventually, enough is enough however. If we are going to allow the company to exist, then maybe unlimited liability will light a fire under the shareholders asses.
If this affects the capital markets, I would hope that it is to make past criminal behaviour by corporations and their managers more prominent in stock evaluations.
No, it isn’t an overreaction. Insulating investors from liability greater than the amount they have invested is the single most important factor in maintaining healthy capital markets. Take that away and you basically destroy equity financing.
This is why I won’t paint in broad strokes. It’s far to easy to assume as given that many corporations “routinely show wreckless [sic] disregard for human life, environmental law or illegally influence legislators/judicators [sic]” But that’s just knee-jerk populism. What evidence do you have that those types of behaviors are widespread problems? If they aren’t widespread problems, what evidence do you have to show that the law as written is incapable of dealing with the odd-duck offender? Concrete facts, not hand-waving generalizations, please.
Oh, that’s even better. Not only are you going to stick it to the shareholders, but now you’re going to start sticking it to them at some undefined point when a company becomes irredeemable. Nothing like eliminating the ability of investors to adequatly plan for risk.
Riiiiiiiight. Like so many managers guilty of serious wrongdoing had prior records of wrongdoing to which shareholders were privy. :rolleyes:
No, it is an overreaction as I did not call for the abolition of limited liability. I said that in the case of criminal activity it may be rescinded.
What evidence do you have that I believe it is a widespread problem? I actually specifically mentioned the current anti-rackateeering laws and wanted lawyer comment. Why don’t you relax and quit assuming I’m some “hand-waving” communist/anarchist.
FFS, I’m not writing the legislation here so yeah it’s “undefined”. I would want stuff like that decided by courts of law. You know, like when they decide actual people are irredeemable and throw them in prison for life.
Well maybe. If I am culpable if I merely give a loan to a company then they wouldn’t be completely destroyed. However not being able to issue stock is a serious, serious, serious problem for a capitalistic society. You will dry up much of the investment money for new development essential stagnating your economy.
(I am not sure of your position on the legal system so ignore if I make the wrong assumption)
This is one of the largest problems I have with Libertaria. If the only law consists of citizens shall be protected from coercion how can I know what constitutes coercion and what does not? Our legal system may be bloated but almost all situations have a law ascribed to them or some precendent. I can hire a lawyer to tell me whether or not my action is legal in America but can I do that in Libertaria?
Think about a company like General Electric they have over a billion shares of stock issued with over a million shareholders. Once your company is found guilty of polluting a lake or something what can those million shareholders do? No one is going to want to buy their shares and risk going to jail. Your average shareholder isn’t going to have any sway on the management. They are basically screwed becuase they can’t get rid of their liability nor can they control it.
Yes but then again some of the effects of companies wrong doings take decades to show themselves. Despite someones best research they won’t find the wrong doings becuase there is no evidence of them. Think along the lines of asbestos.
On preview
You have abolished it. I am liable for the criminal activity of a company I invested in beyond my investment.