CORRECTING THE LIBERTARIAN ARGUMENT AGAINST CORPORATIONS Corporations are collec

CORRECTING THE LIBERTARIAN ARGUMENT AGAINST CORPORATIONS

Corporations are collections of people insured by the state in order to decrease the risk of legal attacks on one hand and increase employment, wealth and taxes on the other.

Unfortunately, for historical reasons, this legal protection and corporeal terminology evolved rather than insurance and economic terminology.

As such, most of the political rhetoric regarding corporations as analogies for people are empty verbalisms.

The correct amalogy is public-private investments in order for the state to encourage risk taking by insuring owners against legal risk.

This turns out to be useful during early capitalism, but decreesses in value as wealth increaees.

Public private partnerships are useful and necessary means of producing commons which are later fully privatized.

No populace has SURVIVED economic competition without this strategy.

The evolutionary failure is in not privatizing (uninsuring) these entities once one has a functioning economy.

This is another example of the confusion caused by conflating administrative law and insurance functions and economic policy in a single governmental body.

If instead we used insurers and insurer paid legal processes, and loser-pays we could achieve the same effect.

However, the libertarian logical fallacy is that such public private partnerships are not nevessary for the initial production of an economy and the organic development of laws that facilitate risk taking.

We are correct that this insurance should be withdrawn at some point, and that it had gone too far. But we are wrong to assume that it is not competitively necessary for a polity to generate a high trust, high velicity economy.

Westerners invented most capitalist law. But once law is invented, it can be restated and reformed without its historical linguistic and cultural baggage.

This is the problem: the empty verbalism of organic development using governments mixing functions of administrative law, insurer, producer of commons, and economic policy.

As such many if our arguments are empty verbalisms not attempts at institutional reformation.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev