Comments on: Looking For A Hand

By: whig

whig — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 02:59:03 +0000

Yes, Bryan, that’s true.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 19:48:51 +0000

That’s the point, Whig – you couldn’t get health insurance as an individual, but they had to give it to you as a corporation. That is just flat wrong.

By: whig

whig — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 09:02:22 +0000

I had to allow a corporation to be created for me at one time in order to get medical insurance. I made sure I was not an officer or shareholder. I have owned shares in public traded corporations, and I have worked for corporations. I deal with them as necessities, but not such as would be needed if the economic system were otherwise.

By: whig

whig — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 08:59:50 +0000

I agree with you, Bryan.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 05:34:39 +0000

I knew what you were talking about and I see no reason to allow it. These practices are essentially the reason for the current problems with Iran – colonies are “mined” for raw materials and forced to buy back the finished products.

That was a major reason for the involvement of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts in the Revolution, their small manufacturers were not allowed to compete with crown chartered companies. That is also a prime reason there were no chartered companies mentioned in the Constitution.

Corporations are extensions of crown chartered companies. They are “privileged” in transactions, and aren’t required to play by the same rules. A lot of people incorporate small businesses because of all of the benefits that the government bestows on corporations and withholds from other companies.

If someone wishes to sell shares in their company, that is their choice, but that choice should not entitle them to special favors. They should still be subject to the same risks as any other business.

By: whig

whig — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 04:58:41 +0000

I think I was being too clever. The American East India Company was a metaphor for what we are facing, the American revolution was made principally against the British East India Company:

Although schoolchildren are usually taught that the American Revolution was a rebellion against “taxation without representation,” akin to modern day conservative taxpayer revolts, in fact what led to the revolution was rage against a transnational corporation that, by the 1760s, dominated trade from China to India to the Caribbean, and controlled nearly all commerce to and from North America, with subsidies and special dispensation from the British crown. Hewes notes: "The [East India] Company received permission to transport tea, free of all duty, from Great Britain to America…" allowing it to wipe out New England–based tea wholesalers and mom-and-pop stores and take over the tea business in all of America.[1]

By: Bryan

Bryan — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:23:12 +0000

If it can’t be financed without limiting liability, maybe it isn’t worth doing. I wouldn’t deal with an American East India Company, I wouldn’t offer protections or guarantees to any business beyond copyright and patent protection.

Lloyds of London seems to be able to prosper without any limit on liability, let the rest of the “business” world try it.

By: whig

whig — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 09:50:15 +0000

Corporations ought not to be treated as persons, but firms. A firm can be made up of general partners and limited partners, the latter may be investors whose liability is protected by insurance. If we don’t want to create a new monster insurance corporation, this can be a public insurance which provides for audits.

Somewhere awhile back I proposed a constitutional amendment to deal with this. I don’t know how good it was, or whether it would be easier to redraft than find it. Anyhow, do you think that’s a fruitful way to go and how would you deal with the American East India Company?

By: Bryan

Bryan — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 05:49:57 +0000

The limit to risk has to be balanced by something, which was at one time a level of regulation, but that is gone. In the courts you can’t win an award that would bankrupt a corporation, like you can an individual. That isn’t right, that isn’t a level playing field.

Then they were awarded, in passing I might add, status as a person with all of the rights of a person, but none of the responsibilities. It’s just wrong.

By: whig

whig — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 05:32:33 +0000

The original purpose of a corporation was sound, to create a body of men (women weren’t in the work force) that could complete a project, like a bridge, with limited liability for public purposes.