Ayn Rand Reviews Children's Movies

[moda0306]

Funny.

Sometimes "Ayn" makes oddly good points (Mary Poppins, L&tT).

It's so interesting listening to the varying messages of anarchists.  I've been listening to Noam Chomsky on Youtube lately.  As an anarchist, he believes the state is an "illegitimate entity."  However, he's very much of the "commie" property norm variety. 

For those interested, however, there are few people I've followed who seem better educated on history.  You may not like his opinions, but he Gumbies the living hell out of his opponents in debate.

[MachineGhost]

ROFL!  What a miserable bitch.

Refreshing my mind on the benefits of rental real estate investing recently, I was suddenly struck by how moda is right, at least in regards to shelter.  It is a monopoly, it is a bullshit one and the losers are everyone but the monopolists, in this case the capitalists and investors that put up the capital to dominate the land (and improvements) -- all backed by force.  The reward is magnitudes out of proportion to any risk!!!

ROFL! What a miserable bitch.

undoubtedly true in some and possibly many ways..... but i am pretty sure this article is just snarky NY satire and that ayn rand didn't come back from the grave to comment on newly released movies....

[Greg]

ROFL!  What a miserable bitch.

Refreshing my mind on the benefits of rental real estate investing recently, I was suddenly struck by how moda is right, at least in regards to shelter.  It is a monopoly, it is a bullshit one and the losers are everyone but the monopolists, in this case the capitalists and investors that put up the capital to dominate the land (and improvements) -- all backed by force.  The reward is magnitudes out of proportion to any risk!!!

Are you talking about actually owning real estate and renting it or are you talking about REITs?

[moda0306]

ROFL!  What a miserable bitch.

Refreshing my mind on the benefits of rental real estate investing recently, I was suddenly struck by how moda is right, at least in regards to shelter.  It is a monopoly, it is a bullshit one and the losers are everyone but the monopolists, in this case the capitalists and investors that put up the capital to dominate the land (and improvements) -- all backed by force.  The reward is magnitudes out of proportion to any risk!!!

I don't know that I've claimed real estate is a monopoly... just that you have to do mental gymnastics to really, truly claim that it is "private property" from a rights perspective.  To me, it is far-more an odd combination of what seem to be "natural rights," (that I "own" things I create), and a utilitarian concession to allow civilization to even occur.  However, what this does is essentially makes any valuable land/resources "off-limits" to those that weren't around early enough to get in on the state-backed land-grab.

It definitely has its merits, and it's a part of society that will never change completely (though taxes and regs may be applied), so I see no reason to fight it, so much as acknowledge that a social safety net in exchange is not an unreasonable bargain to those who didn't even ask to play the game of "Musical Acres," but didn't find a chair when the music stopped (or in many cases, were banned by the state from playing, or even worse... were, themselves, considered property).

The free-market "flow" of property may seem pretty fair at this point, but the "stock" of it certainly isn't, by definition, as much of the existing wealth in our earth has essentially been given to those who the government deems to do the best work with it ("best" being a term up for interpretation).

I know I sound like a commie when I say all this, but I have similar annoyance towards what communist property norms suggest.  "Occupation and use," or some model that requires a vast, overarching state to administer, has different flaws.  Some would say worse.

Few want to admit it, but we have a mixed view of property today.  There's a lot of capitalist property norms in our system, along with some commie/socialist ones as well (land use regs, property taxes, etc).

[MachineGhost]

Are you talking about actually owning real estate and renting it or are you talking about REITs?

Yep, I'm talking about actually owning it as a landloard.  It's obviously all a legal shell game created to sustain rentiers.  And with an awful lot of ancilliary feeder-uponers.  It's like owning Treasury bonds which fleece taxpayers or newer bondholders to pay you in a Ponzi scheme.  What a whack world we live in.

I think I'll paraphrase Churchill here: "Private property is the worst form of metaphysical exploitation ever devised; except for all the others!"

[Pointedstick]

Landlords perform a valuable service: they own property so others don't have to. A piece of real estate is a significant asset that faces unique and varied risks that can quickly take its value down to zero, and it is a significant amount of work to maintain a its value as time and the elements naturally want to degrade the structures and cause the land to revert to its natural form. A lot of people--and especially businesses--don't care to assume these risks and do the requisite maintenance and improvement work; they have better things to do with their time. Landlords allow these people and businesses to spend their time earning money to pay the landlord to take care of all that stuff instead of having to take care of it themselves. I'm not one of those people, and I like taking care of a property, but I can totally understand how it's not for everyone.

[moda0306]

Landlords perform a valuable service: they own property so others don't have to. A piece of real estate is a significant asset that faces unique and varied risks that can quickly take its value down to zero, and it is a significant amount of work to maintain a its value as time and the elements naturally want to degrade the structures and cause the land to revert to its natural form. A lot of people--and especially businesses--don't care to assume these risks and do the requisite maintenance and improvement work; they have better things to do with their time. Landlords allow these people and businesses to spend their time earning money to pay the landlord to take care of all that stuff instead of having to take care of it themselves. I'm not one of those people, and I like taking care of a property, but I can totally understand how it's not for everyone.

Like I said, the flows of the capitalist economy are not the same as the stock.  Based on risk, opportunity cost, etc, the cost of rent and return on owning property is probably reasonable.

However, when the STOCK of societal wealth is so heavily-loaded in certain folks' hands, however... and the fact that much of that wealth was acquired through NON-market means... the suggestion that all will be fair in the market if the government just got out of the way, removed all social safety nets, and everything will, by definition, be fair, is a myth, IMO.

Of course, if some young, good-saver entrepreneur ends up buying a small apartment complex to rent out to folks, I hardly think he's some sort of plutocrat.  On the contrary... I'd probably commend him for taking on such a task. But this is more about macro/historical economics than of one guy renting to someone else.

[Pointedstick]

However, when the STOCK of societal wealth is so heavily-loaded in certain folks' hands,

Unless you're referring to various levels of government, I'm really not sure what you mean by this. In every city I've ever lived in, the real estate has been ostensibly owned by thousands of individuals, firms, owners, landlords, and property management companies. Can you provide an example of what you mean?

however... and the fact that much of that wealth was acquired through NON-market means...

Can you provide an example of a current or historical human society in which this was not the case?

[moda0306]

However, when the STOCK of societal wealth is so heavily-loaded in certain folks' hands,

Unless you're referring to various levels of government, I'm really not sure what you mean by this. In every city I've ever lived in, the real estate has been ostensibly owned by thousands of individuals, firms, owners, landlords, and property management companies. Can you provide an example of what you mean?

however... and the fact that much of that wealth was acquired through NON-market means...

Can you provide an example of a current or historical human society in which this was not the case?

PS,

1) Uber-wealthy families who perhaps transferred their wealth into interests that are not rental facilities.  Could be muni bonds... could be foreign debt or business interests

2) Most societies throughout history, if not all of them, have engaged in non-market means of acquiring property or possession.  In fact, it can be no other way.  We require resources to live, and we don't obtain resources through a market, necessarily, but through simply taking what we need from the earth.  But there are hugely varying degrees to this.  Some nomadic tribesman spearing a buffalo and defending his hut from intruders is different than an industrialist strip-mining 10,000 acres of land.

Just because "societies have all done this" doesn't excuse the massive degree some have done it in far more obnoxious advantage to themselves vs others.  One could say they are "smarter societies" for having done so, and in many ways they're right!  Sometimes theft is smart!  But if we're talking about the moral aspect of property (you really can't separate the two too far), then those who want the "stock" of wealth to stay static but government to stop sending any flow to the poor, all based on fair property principles, I start to question their economic math.

This is just the way I see things... nobody has to agree. But I wanted to clarify for MG.

[Pointedstick]

1) That's a hypothetical generality, not a specific example. It doesn't even concern real estate, which is the subject of the discussion. F-- would not buy again.


2) I'm not sure I see the point in arguing the immorality of historical events that you acknowledge were universal. Might as well complain that it gets cold in winter.

Why not instead rejoice over the fact that we're clearly in the middle of overcoming the previously-widespread practice of whacking people and taking their stuff because we're bigger and stronger than they are? Why focus on a past that cannot be changed when the present is in the middle of undergoing the very change that you want?

And finally, why focus so much on private interests when most of the remaining organized "whackers and takers" are modern governments, including our own? If the immorality of conquering land offends you, well, I'm pretty sure the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are 10,000 times worse than the fact that you and I both purchased houses in voluntary market transactions to peacefully steward and live in that happen to be sited on land that 500 years ago belonged to other groups of people that was violently taken from them by still other people who might or might not be our ancestors--all of whom have been dead and worm-eaten for centuries.

[MachineGhost]

Why not instead rejoice over the fact that we're clearly in the middle of overcoming the previously-widespread practice of whacking people and taking their stuff because we're bigger and stronger than they are? Why focus on a past that cannot be changed when the present is in the middle of undergoing the very change that you want?

And finally, why focus so much on private interests when most of the remaining organized "whackers and takers" are modern governments, including our own? If the immorality of conquering land offends you, well, I'm pretty sure the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are 10,000 times worse than the fact that you and I both purchased houses in voluntary market transactions to peacefully steward and live in that happen to be sited on land that 500 years ago belonged to other groups of people that was violently taken from them by still other people who might or might not be our ancestors--all of whom have been dead and worm-eaten for centuries.

The point is, ladies and gentlemen, not to freaking do it again!!!!  Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it endlessly.

[moda0306]

1) That's a hypothetical generality, not a specific example. It doesn't even concern real estate, which is the subject of the discussion. F-- would not buy again.


2) I'm not sure I see the point in arguing the immorality of historical events that you acknowledge were universal. Might as well complain that it gets cold in winter.

Why not instead rejoice over the fact that we're clearly in the middle of overcoming the previously-widespread practice of whacking people and taking their stuff because we're bigger and stronger than they are? Why focus on a past that cannot be changed when the present is in the middle of undergoing the very change that you want?

And finally, why focus so much on private interests when most of the remaining organized "whackers and takers" are modern governments, including our own? If the immorality of conquering land offends you, well, I'm pretty sure the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are 10,000 times worse than the fact that you and I both purchased houses in voluntary market transactions to peacefully steward and live in that happen to be sited on land that 500 years ago belonged to other groups of people that was violently taken from them by still other people who might or might not be our ancestors--all of whom have been dead and worm-eaten for centuries.

The only reason I usually bring this stuff up is not to lament about how awful life is today for certain folks, or to advocate political activism or revolution.  It's usually in response to somebody with a moral hard-on for laissez faire, capitalist property norms complaining about "theft" via gov't regulations and taxation (oftentimes because it's going to help someone that doesn't look like them).  It serves to show them that there is no natural moral monopolist link to man and land, and that private property is more-so a big social engineering "social contract" than any sort of fundamental philosophical link between a man and the world around him.  It's only in that context that I feel the need to put it in perspective.  Otherwise, I really don't worry about it all that much.

And if our topic is going to be whacking and taking, yes, government should be focused on.  Focusing on private enterprise is usually more of an economic conversation.  I'd add a caveat that less and less am I even thinking there is such a think as "private" vs "public."  Most business-owners I've encountered have a hard-on for U.S. military power (less-so after years of BS in Iraq, but you still see it pop up when new conflicts arise overseas).  They pray to the God of the state just as much as the welfare queen.  They just want it to do different things and point guns at different folks (and unfortunately, those guns are usually bigger and fired far more often). In fact, a good chunk about what makes me nervous about the self-perpetuating nature of our aggressive presence overseas isn't General Hardass or Colonol Cockpunch, but instead "private sector" CEO Calvin Crony III.  The first two you can shut up with a pension check.  The second one is far more motivated to keep the status quo working to his leveraged benefit (and that, of course, of his shareholders).

But overall I'm glad to be living where I am and I think most people should take a step back from the moral melodrama around their political opinions.

[Pointedstick]

Your argument is getting incoherent, and you're arguing against people not present. Nobody participating in this thread has a hard-on for U.S. military power or laissez faire, capitalist property norms. As I think we will all acknowledge, it is not contested that there's substantial immorality in the history of property allocation. But that goes for basically everything in the past! The way things came to be arranged today in all manner of ways looks to our modern eyes to be brutal, barbaric, and callous. But that's just how things were back there. We can't change our or anyone else's past. But we can learn from it, which I would argue is precisely what we're doing today in largely adhering to a non-violent, voluntarist model of property transfer.

Does it suck that 500 years ago, a bunch of white colonialists/invaders/illegal immigrants took by force the lands of the native Americans? Yes. But in terms of concrete benefits that accrue to people today, most of those benefits have diffused to the point where modern people barely derive any discrete benefits at all from those actions. By way of illustration, the house that you bought was purchased from its previous owner via the exchange of money. There was no special white person fund that gave you the house for free or something. If a Native American wanted to buy that or any other house, he'd be in exactly the same boat: needing money to do it. What happened 500 years in the past is immaterial to both of you inasmuch as it affects people's ability to acquire property.

To the extent that this hypothetical the Native American has been denied the opportunity to live in a society without our property norms, where he could just go and build a little cabin anywhere and people would be cool with it, I would say that nearly every indigenous group the world over has suffered the same fate; it's a near-total historical universality. Societies with well-defined notions of private property are stronger, more powerful, and more prosperous. It's just the truth. Bluntly put, if it wasn't us, either someone else would have conquered the land for themselves, or else the inhabitants would have had to adapt their own societies to generate stronger property norms of their own, in order to tap some of the prosperity and power that such institutions generate, which were so necessary for surviving in a pre-modern world and so necessary for thriving in today's world. So our hypothetical Native American of today would still be in the same boat of needing to get some money to buy himself a house or some land.

Basically, poorly-defined property norms are a societal liability, an institutional evolutionary dead-end, so to speak. There is no point in ruminating on the historical unfairness of a social institution that has been near-universally adopted the world over because of its utilitarian benefits in the past and moral benefits in the present. I don't understand why you focus so much on this.

[moda0306]

PS,

For the most part I agree with your premises.  Even that most people here don't have a hardon for military power.  This thread is sort of an exception, but the only time I tend to focus on this is when a conservative or libertarian is trying to assert the moral perfection of private property, and advocate for dismantling the social safety net, especially on moral grounds.  I only focus on this when the conservative or libertarian moralizing starts happening, for the most part (or I'm arguing with an anarcho-capitalist trying to figure out morality even has a logically provable foundation).

I know it seems like I bring this up a lot.  It's because we talk about property and theft and economics a lot.  It's extremely pertinent to those discussions.

I also agree that poorly-defined property rights are a social liability.  This is a UTILITARIAN argument that I whole-heartedly agree with.  Property rights are a phenomenal social engineering tool and can lead to far more productivity and autonomy for many than would otherwise be the case.  But if we're talking utilitarian arguments, then this is a very different conversation than a rights-based one that could contain certain topics that conservatives/libertarians REALLY don't like, such as land-use regs, public education, social safety nets, universal healthcare, etc... yes at the expense of "property rights," but not to the point were they would be deemed so "poorly defined" so as to suffer huge utilitarian losses. 

This is what I see a lot of arguments breakdown... they keep moving the goal post between selfish, utilitarian, and rights-based goals.  I'm not trying to say we should all go into a melodramatic mode of white-guilt with regards to everything our ancestors did or our country did or whatever.  But I also don't think we should go into a melodramatic mode of "theft-bitching" like anarcho-caps and some conservative/libertarians get into.

If property rights are moral in nature, than it does pay to ruminate a bit on the history of their usage.  To say "everyone has done it" is a pretty big cop out in this case, due to the massive difference between claiming a small hut as your property and strip-mining thousands of acres.  Trying to equate these two is a stretch, but even if it weren't, simply because "people have always been doing it" doesn't make it right.  There are TONS of things that societies have/had been doing for centuries that we would both probably outright reject on moral AND utilitarian grounds.  Conversely, if property rights are purely utilitarian in nature, then they should be viewed on those terms, but it should be clear how utilitarian benefits are being measured, and when other considerations between "clearly-defined property rights" actually yield marginally higher utilitarian benefits (to, I'd imagine, "society as a whole").  And if something's "utilitarian benefit" is of exponential importance the closer one gets to not being able to afford the basics of life, then those are the utilitarian considerations we should focus the most on (rather than maximizing GDP or having the best-manicured lawns or whatever).

But when people are allowed to dance as they see fit between utilitarian and moralizing rights-based arguments, and ignore the past and ignore the utilitarian benefits of "others" within their society as they do so, you're going to see a lot of convenient, one-sided "conclusions."  Case-in-point... Kshartle's arguments on the status of property.

[Pointedstick]

Private property is a vastly morally superior system to any other ever devised for determining who is able to exercise dominion over physical goods and pieces of land. Every human society  that has ever existed has had such a system and inherently needs one given the reality of scarcity. If you have ever encountered a morally superior system for determining who can own what and how owned things get transferred from person to person, please let me know! I don't believe I have.

Now, in the PAST, this institution was often used as a fa�ade for theft in a barbaric world. "Embrace it and be prosperous and powerful; ignore it and be small and weak." People were just brutes. They took what they wanted because they could, and they liked to label their theft as legitimate to make themselves feel better about it.

In the PRESENT, our kinder world that cares more about rights and fairness displays the inherent morality of private property by doing away with most of this "private-property-themed theft" and showing how 99.9% of property transactions proceed smoothly, morally, and without needing to involve third parties or authorities.

Does that make sense?

[moda0306]

If you're trying to convince me that private property has a ton of awesome traits and we live in a pretty sweet time to be alive, you're preaching to the choir.



However, I think that there are probably property models that are morally superior to the one we have now... Or a laissez faire system. But I don't see "private property" as a "system."  It's a concept that exists in various forms within an economic system. Our system that you seem to love so much (I think it's pretty cool, too) is hardly a pure laissez faire capitalist property norm system, and I think it is better for not being that pure.

[MachineGhost]

Utilitarianism without morality is like a pedophile with a never-ending nursery.  My favorite argument is always based on utilitarianism for the public interest, but it has its limits.  Usually when some amoral asshole (or assholes in case of entrenched elites) takes advantage of it.

[moda0306]

MG,

When I mention "morality" vs utilitarianism, I mean it from a Kantian/Rights-based standpoint... where individual rights take precedence over the utilitarian "public good" aspects of a moral debate.

But thanks for helping clarify that.

[Pointedstick]

If you're trying to convince me that private property has a ton of awesome traits and we live in a pretty sweet time to be alive, you're preaching to the choir.



However, I think that there are probably property models that are morally superior to the one we have now... Or a laissez faire system. But I don't see "private property" as a "system."  It's a concept that exists in various forms within an economic system. Our system that you seem to love so much (I think it's pretty cool, too) is hardly a pure laissez faire capitalist property norm system, and I think it is better for not being that pure.

I do think it's pretty darn cool. However, my opinion is that that most of the parts of it that are most problematic are related to government interference. As an example: the corporation, which is a legal fiction created by government that allows people be shielded from the blowback and negative effects of their actions. Limited financial liability is one thing; limited criminal liability is quite another. The corporation does exactly what the state designed it to do: become extremely wealthy while offloading the problems it causes onto other people. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[moda0306]

PS,

I have to agree at least on that corporation point. The corporation is a legal fiction that allows for extremely unnatural economic arrangements. Could anyone imagine something like an S&P 500 even existing without the state?  I don't think so, personally.

But I think the state is an unavoidable phenomenon in one way or another. We can either try to deny it its existence, or try to have it work for the utilitarian good of the masses and discourage "races to the bottom" while managing catastrophic systemic risk.  I could be wrong... But I really don't see much way around it. I suppose all any of us can do is hope to see how our libertarian Atlantic Sea compound eventually comes along.

[Pointedstick]

I'm not denying the state's existence. I have owned a corporation myself, actually, and plan to again. But even so, I acknowledge that when I do so, I am accepting the protection of the state, and I take seriously the fact that if I wanted to, I could do a bunch of damage to the world around me. It makes be want to be more conscientious with that power, not abuse it.

...And that's exactly why it's a flawed institution: it uses government power to shield people from the consequences of  causing widespread damage and then asks them to refrain from taking advantage of it. Moral people will, amoral people won't. If anyone ever proposed making "piercing the corporate veil" the standard thing rather than some weird exception, I would wholeheartedly accept it. but when was the last time any politician did that, eh?

[MachineGhost]

Once again, its time to dust off an absolute classic to remind us all what the "state" really is.  Presenting the deep and powerful The New Idol by Friedrich Nietzsche:

Somewhere there are still peoples and herds, but not with us, my brothers: here there are states.

A state? What is that? Well! Open now your ears to me, for now I will speak to you about the death of peoples.

State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies; and this lie slips from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people."

It is a lie! It was creators who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life.

Destroyers are they who lay snares for the many, and call it state: they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them.

Where there are still peoples, the state is not understood, and is hated as the evil eye, and as sin against laws and customs.

This sign I give to you: every people speaks its own language of good and evil, which its neighbor does not understand. It has created its own language of laws and customs.

But the state lies in all the tongues of good and evil; and whatever it says it lies; and whatever it has it has stolen.

Everything in it is false; it bites with stolen teeth, and bites often. It is false down to its bowels.

Confusion of tongues of good and evil; this sign I give you as the sign of the state. This sign points to the will to death! It points to the preachers of death!

All too many are born: for the superfluous the state was created!

See how it entices them to it, the all-too-many! How it swallows and chews and rechews them!

"On earth there is nothing greater than I: I am the governing hand of God." -- thus roars the monster. And not only the long-eared and short-sighted fall upon their knees!

Ah! Even in your ears, you great souls, it whispers its gloomy lies! Ah! It finds out the rich hearts which willingly squander themselves!

Yes, it finds you too, you conquerors of the old God! You became weary of conflict, and now your weariness serves the new idol!

It would set up heroes and honorable ones around it, the new idol! Gladly it basks in the sunshine of good consciences, -- the cold monster!

It will give everything to you, if you worship it, the new idol: thus it buys the lustre of your virtue, and the glance of your proud eyes.

Through you it seeks to seduce the all-too-many! Yes, a hellish artifice has been created here, a death-horse jingling with the trappings of divine honors!

Yes, a dying for many has been created here, which glorifies itself as life: verily, a great service to all preachers of death!

The state, I call it, where all drink poison, the good and the bad: the state, where all lose themselves, the good and the bad: the state, where the slow suicide of all -- is called "life."

Behold the superfluous! They steal the works of the creators and the treasures of the wise. Education, they call their theft -- and everything becomes sickness and trouble to them!

Behold the superfluous! They are always sick; they vomit their bile and call it a newspaper. They devour each other and cannot even digest themselves.

Behold the superfluous! They acquire wealth and become the poorer for it. They seek power, and the lever of power, much money -- these impotent ones!

See them clamber, these nimble apes! They clamber over one another, and thus pull each other into the mud and the abyss.

They all strive for the throne: this is their madness -- as if happiness sat on the throne! Often filth sits on the throne. -- and often also the throne on filth.

Madmen they all seem to me, and clambering apes, and too eager. Foul smells their idol to me, the cold monster: foul they all smell to me, these idolaters.

My brothers, will you suffocate in the fumes of their maws and appetites! Better to break the windows and jump into the open air!

Escape from their foul stench! Escape from the idolatry of the superfluous!

Escape from their foul stench! Escape from the steam of these human sacrifices!

The earth is yet free for great souls. There are still many empty sites for the lonesome and the twosome, surrounded by the fragrance of tranquil seas.

A free life is yet possible for great souls. He who possesses little is that much less possessed: blessed be a little poverty!

There, where the state ends -- there only begins the man who is not superfluous: there begins the song of the necessary, the single and irreplaceable melody.

There, where the state ends -- look there, my brothers! Do you not see it, the rainbow and the bridges of the Overman?

[moda0306]

I think of importance is really asking ourselves how much of "state-like" power is present in our "private sector."  PS and other conservatives/libertarians will often admit that our corporatocracy is NOT real capitalism.  This begs the question, if we get rid of the "welfare state," and just have a simple federal government that protects us, manages currency, and that's about it, how much "state" will reside in the corporate world.

When I hear "tear down the state," I really want to say, "do you also mean dismantling the government protection structure around publicly-traded securities (things that could NOT exist without government management and support of the market)?"  Because if we dismantle that as well, what you would see is either near-anarchy, or at least some sort of mass-privatization effort from public companies to more privately-held interests.  And as much as we decry our "litigious" society, people would, naturally, be INDIVIDUALLY liable for their individual breaches of contract. 

Nassim Taleb has gone into this in the past... that the upside/downside benefit/cost of taking risks (and in the case of oligopolies and monopolies, it would be the systemic sort) is WAY out of line with reality.  A corporate manager has massive upside for taking risk if things go well, but very, very limited downside if it doesn't.  And our legal structures reinforce this.  I don't think this is nefarious... I really think there are some benefits to people being able to take a good amount of risk on a societal level if it's broken up enough (rather than systemic), but it becomes very clear that if you want to dismantle the power of the state, we have some very difficult questions to ask about corporate power and the legitimacy of our business entities in the U.S.

[MachineGhost]

Nassim Taleb has gone into this in the past... that the upside/downside benefit/cost of taking risks (and in the case of oligopolies and monopolies, it would be the systemic sort) is WAY out of line with reality.  A corporate manager has massive upside for taking risk if things go well, but very, very limited downside if it doesn't.  And our legal structures reinforce this.  I don't think this is nefarious... I really think there are some benefits to people being able to take a good amount of risk on a societal level if it's broken up enough (rather than systemic), but it becomes very clear that if you want to dismantle the power of the state, we have some very difficult questions to ask about corporate power and the legitimacy of our business entities in the U.S.

You can't really dismantle the power of the "state" because it will be reborn like a Phoenix arising from its ashes.  From Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:

People arrive at a factory and perform a totally meaningless task from eight to five without question because the structure demands that it be that way. There’s no villain, no ‘mean guy’ who wants them to live meaningless lives, it’s just that the structure, the system demands it and no one is willing to take on the formidable task of changing the structure just because it is meaningless. But to tear down a factory or to revolt against a government or to avoid repair of a motorcycle because it is a system is to attack effects rather than causes; and as long as the attack is upon effects only, no change is possible. The true system, the real system, is our present construction of systematic thought itself, rationality itself, and if a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government. There’s so much talk about the system. And so little understanding.

Between that and Nietzsche's deep wisdom, it's barking up a tree to focus on symptoms rather than the cause.  I have given up on fighting the latter.  Life is too short and both ignorance and stupidity are bottomless.

[Libertarian666]

I think of importance is really asking ourselves how much of "state-like" power is present in our "private sector."  PS and other conservatives/libertarians will often admit that our corporatocracy is NOT real capitalism.  This begs the question, if we get rid of the "welfare state," and just have a simple federal government that protects us, manages currency, and that's about it, how much "state" will reside in the corporate world.

When I hear "tear down the state," I really want to say, "do you also mean dismantling the government protection structure around publicly-traded securities (things that could NOT exist without government management and support of the market)?"  Because if we dismantle that as well, what you would see is either near-anarchy, or at least some sort of mass-privatization effort from public companies to more privately-held interests.  And as much as we decry our "litigious" society, people would, naturally, be INDIVIDUALLY liable for their individual breaches of contract. 

Nassim Taleb has gone into this in the past... that the upside/downside benefit/cost of taking risks (and in the case of oligopolies and monopolies, it would be the systemic sort) is WAY out of line with reality.  A corporate manager has massive upside for taking risk if things go well, but very, very limited downside if it doesn't.  And our legal structures reinforce this.  I don't think this is nefarious... I really think there are some benefits to people being able to take a good amount of risk on a societal level if it's broken up enough (rather than systemic), but it becomes very clear that if you want to dismantle the power of the state, we have some very difficult questions to ask about corporate power and the legitimacy of our business entities in the U.S.

The problem with corporations, as I believe PS has mentioned already, is the conflation of financial liability and criminal liability. There is absolutely nothing wrong with limiting the former as it applies to corporations (or limited partnerships, LLCs, or the like), so long as all those who deal with the entity know and agree that they cannot sue the employees personally. Otherwise, it would be impossible to organize a project that is too big for individuals to guarantee personally; even Lloyd's, which was the last holdout for unlimited liability, eventually had to reorganize due to the unbearable strain on their "names".

There is a LOT wrong with the limitation of criminal liability, and in fact I don't know when or where that notion came into effect.

In any event, unless we also eliminate the possibility of personal bankruptcy, which I think would be a very bad idea, even personally liable employees of an unlimited liability company could still escape, albeit with serious consequences to themselves.

All that being said, and even as the owner of a C corporation, I'd be very happy to get rid of limited liability if we could also get rid of government.