The word "corporation" is becoming synonymous with "evil" in Western society, if not the globe. However, most people are completely unaware of what a corporation is, what function it performs and its relationship to the state.
This is the second installment of my series on corporations and profit. This piece will focus on understanding the nature of a "corporation" as well as an exploration of how large-scale enterprise might be accomplished in a Voluntary society. The first piece, which explores the idea of "obscene profits" from the perspective of the mechanics of profit can be found here.
It is entirely likely that, left or right, if you consider yourself a politically conscious and ethical person in modern society, you almost certainly consider "corporations" to be one of the great evils -- if not the Great Evil -- of our time. If you have a dash of capitalist economic knowledge, you might temper that with the qualifier of "crony capitalist" in front of "corporation" and be a bit closer to the truth, but even then the concept of what a corporation is and does and its relationship to the state is often misunderstood.
"Corporate person-hood" is railed against without understanding the what, how and why of it; just vague anger that those "evil corporations" are treated with the same rights as people. How dare they!?
People toss out ideas like 90% or even 100% taxes on corporate profits (or worse still, to tax gross income rather than profit) with no idea how destructive this would be or, even if they've an inkling, why it would be destructive. All that is known is that those Evil Corporations are experiencing profits in the billions while minimum wage workers (supposedly) starve.
A corporation is, most simply, a box to put money into so that employees can be employed, expenses paid, regulations met and capital for future business is accumulated all before the money to meet those ends is paid to the owner's personal income. More officially, a corporation is a fictional legal entity constructed to serve as an "invisible man" to hold income, pay taxes and serve as the liable entity for the entire enterprise. It serves as the person responsible for following business regulations (hence, "corporate person-hood") which cannot ethically or practically be held against a private individual.
A corporation is a creation of a state to secure a legal reification over a business enterprise which, being an abstract, would otherwise be impossible to control or regulate. Consider the fact that of the US Federal Register's over 80,000 pages of regulations, most purportedly apply only to corporations. However, imagine if those all applied, instead, to you. You are then responsible for following -- and suffer the consequences for breaking -- all those rules that currently are met by a corporation. You litter at work? Your employer is no longer responsible, you are.
The corporation acts as the responsible party; however, in order to fairly prosecute any case it is also necessary to recognize the accused party as having at the least some basic legal rights -- hence, again, "corporate person-hood" and the whole Citizens United fiasco.
A corporation acts as a box in which the business enterprise's capital accumulates, allowing taxes, expenses and payroll to be paid prior to any collection by the owner(s) as personal income. This allows the enterprise to be taxed in addition to its owner.
A corporation is, finally, a means of apportioning a business enterprise, in the form stock shares, among its owners proportional to their capital contribution to the enterprise.
A corporation is, in short, completely and totally tied up in the state, the state's doll allowing it to collect a far larger share of taxes and to regulate the business far beyond what could be expected of any individuals to be capable of knowing, let alone following. The state and the corporation are inseparable.
So why would I, the "anarcho"-capitalist, support such a thing!? How dare I call myself an "anarchist" and support that statist monstrosity!? Simple. I don't. I do not believe "corporations", as we know them today, are at all necessary or fit to "exist".
A "corporation" is as much a reification fallacy as a "state" or "nation". It's an imaginary box person created solely for the needs of the state.
This is not to say I oppose large (or even global) scale enterprise. Rather that such enterprises would simply be agreements to exercise shares of ownership over an enterprise. How they might conduct or secure such share is entirely their business. State involvement, however, is unnecessary. No invisible man. No magic box. Just people agreeing to work together in whatever way(s) they choose. Voluntarily.
Thomas Shirk is a computer programmer, Voluntaryist and aspiring philosopher. Please come back to his blog or follow him on Facebook and Steemit for regular updates on Voluntaryism, capitalism and other philosophical insights
a corporation can be a business with 2 or 3 people,but the fearful--like you say--have equated it to always being a MONSANTO type business model.. the bastardization of words. They likewise fear the word 'capitalism' ... :-/
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
True, though my point was to explore WHAT a corporation is, in current legal and functional terms, not to demonize the process of enterprise.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I have a corporation. Am I evil?
One other thing to consider about the liability aspect: One of the functions of a corporation or an LLC is to protect passive investors in the company from any illegal or harmful acts of the actual managing members. When people rail against companies that are structured like this and claim that they have "zero liability," that's not how it's intended to be. The "limited liability" is suppose to protect those who are not involved and may not even be aware of the daily management and operations of a company. The fact that the managing members of corporations are often found not liable for harm is due to the failure of the state to properly hold them accountable for crimes and any consequent damages.
Corporations aren't evil. The state is. In a voluntary society, I don't see why the basic structure of a large company would necessarily need to be any different than today, nor do I see a reason why contracts couldn't better handle any question of liability for investors and managers. Get rid of the state - we'll figure out the rest.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think you're saying the same thing as I, just from a different angle. I also did not mean to imply, and I'm not entirely sure I DID, that owning a corporation was necessarily evil...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Sorry - my comment was a reference to Meet the Parents. (I have nipples, Greg. Can you milk me?) I understand that it doesn't translate well. I should have clarified the comment and question.
And yes - we're on the same page. I just wanted to make a note about how limited liability is intended to work, but it doesn't because of the state's inevitable failures.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit