Bitcoin Forum

So what do you people think? Most here are libertarians, and I'm curious to see what the libertarian view on a corporation is.. i mean, on one hand you could be laissez faire and let the market forces take effect, but at the same time, you know that corporations and politicians are a big burden to society.

They're made up of people, yes, but the legal fiction surrounding corporations is silly and something only a to-be corporation would dream up and have enough power to push the state to approve of it :P

Without the state to pretend that a corporation exists, there can be no corporations; they're just people running a business with the same risks and rules as everyone else.

Where do you think the "company" word comes from ? :-)

the term corporation is just a shelter for actual people to do bad things and get away with it. it's a state-backed enterprise, as evidenced by government. my republican friend says that corporations do share a lot of similarities with people. i guess they are really really powerful "people" who only pay punitive damages for all the insufferable things they do.

see citizens united: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

No they aren't people.

They are just entities build to protect and separate the owners and runners from actions.

know they are not people.  if anything the laws should be stacked up against them and out their favor.  They break the most laws and cause the most harm to mankind.  I'm glad you asked because I wanted to get that out more then I realized haaha thanks.

"Corporations" can only survive if they create value for society (ie: selling attractive goods and services).  Corporations are a good thing - they resulted in the creation of the computers we're typing on, the power that we use to run the computer, and maybe even the hardware that was used to mine the first bitcoins.

FTFY.. capitalism at its best.

Investors and shareholders are not these "evil people that somehow live separate from society and profit at its expense and that I wish I'd be a part of".

if you invest in the stockmarket, the shareholders need to squeeze every penny out of their shares.. which means companies are expected to do whatever is best for them, even if it really fucks over the rest of the population.

Yes, companies act in their own interest, so do I and so should you.
Non-broken capitalism encourages proper allocation of capital. In a non-broken system that is not based on debt it usually benefits everyone.
But hey I'm just some random retard on some random internet trollboard, read up, become an entrepreneur, see for yourself.

isn't the problem that.. if we do have non-broken capitalism, that means government has to regulate it more? in that case, libertarians would be up in arms.

The problem is limited liability.  If people make decisions they should be held responsible for them on an individual basis.  Saying a "corporation" did this or that is nonsense.  Individuals made the decisions but our corrupt system doesn't see it that way partly because lawyers can extract much more money from a corporation than one person.

People not being fully responsible for their actions breeds the exact results we see.

Nothing to do with capitalism.  It's a corrupt legal system.  Why is the legal system corrupt?   Because it can be.  Because the government has a monopoly on the provision of law and order.   You need free market competition in law and order to solve the problem.

You mix up limited liability and the legal system.
They are orthogonal issues.

Yes, Canada is a person.

A person's responsibility for their actions is not a legal issue???

No.

If a person murders someone (to use one example of an action) they are not legally responsible for that action?

Yes, the corporate veil cannot mask the fact that the ultimate beneficiaries are always people

Apparently they're people if you're Mitt Romney: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A

I disagree.  A corporation has to create value for people other than investors or shareholders to exist.  The investors and shareholders only make money if this happens.  IE: Investors and shareholders in Apple wouldn't make any money if Apple made lousy products that weren't valued.  It would be pointless for a corporation to only exist to serve its shareholders and investors.  That would vastly reduce the amount of consumers it would be making goods and services for.

I can't believe people are actually debating this, corporations are an organisation or groups of organisations made up of people, they aren't 'people' by themselves, the stupid argument you Americans are having is whether or not a listed organisation is a human being, you are also stupid for trying to argue with someone as dumb as Mitt Romney.


Corporations are a group of people, they are not a person.

In most common law jurisdictions, a legal fiction exists that a company is a person.

I can't help but notice a tone of contempt towards the people who invest in companies.  Most people who have pensions depend on stock exchange investments for their retirement income.  If you have not done this yourself, you should.

Are you arguing against Mitt Romney?

http://deathandtaxesmag.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/RomneyCorporationsShirt.jpg

corporations CAN possibly provide a service or product of great value to society, but it doesn't necessarily do so. its main concern is to make money, even if it means screwing over the rest of the population. that's the de facto way it is.

Though you and I realize this, so long as a corporation appears to provide a service or product of great value, it remains a legitimate business.  Take snake-oil, for example; so long as people believe it cures cancer and makes their skin smoother, they'll pay for it.  In this way, all businesses provide a benefit to society, even if we realize some don't; because we're a minority, popular belief always holds true that any business that stands on its own legs is a boon to us all.

There's nothing a person can do without knowledge; all businesses are good in the eyes of the typical consumer.  The only solution, of course, is knowledge.

I haven't heard of a corporation that's stayed in business very long by screwing over entire populations.  The only way for a corporation to make money would be to provide valuable good or service that people want to buy.

you must live in a bubble. heard of the income disparity? the middle class is dying along with the economy. what do you think is contributing to this? why do you think 4 of the top 10 richest people in the U.S. are the waltons, yet they are "struggling" to pay their employees minimum wage at part-time rates, just so that government can come in and pick the rest of the bills for the employees?

The heirs to Walmart are rich because they're invested in one of the most successful retail companies on earth.  Company is only successful because millions of consumers benefit from the valuable service that Walmart provides.

Walmart should spend time working on how to accept Bitcoin and less time responding to political interest groups haha

at this point i really don't know what to tell you anymore. you did not counter my argument, all you said was "walmart founders are really rich because they invested in the retail company."

These Waltons, how do they and their company makes money? Do they provide useful service? If not, why do they make money? Who are they taking profits from, underpaid employees? Are you saying  these employees are actually contributing millions of dollars to economy, but Waltons are taking all those millions for themselves, and only paying them  minimum wage? They must be very spectacular employees.

im not sure where i said that they did not provide a service to society. what i said was that they game the system to pay employees at part-time wages, which means they won't make enough money and will require government assistance. it's so bad that even have their own "specialists" that help employees sign up for government assistance.

They should hire bitcoin specialists instead!

Why not employees ask for more, or quit and find a better job? Or move to find a better job if they have to. Or move back in with their parents, and spend time learning new skill so they do not have to work as cashiers? It is strange for us in our country to see people in America struggling to live on their own, making so little money and barely able to survive. Here they would just live with rest of family until they actually have money to move out. Even if they do not have good job and much money, they can still share house and food with family, and be ok. Why must everyone have their own house, their own car, and their own everything?

Americans are trained to attack anyone who lives with their parents; you can find examples of this all over the site.  As such, they have this idea that they must live by themselves, even if it means sacrificing their potential futures, just to ensure nobody thinks lesser of them.  Once this condition is met, the individual is then accepted as a participating member of society, and never a moment before.

i always hear this argument.. but no matter what you do, there will always be unskilled/uneducated people. sometimes you are so financially strapped that you don't even have the money or time invest in training for a new skill. the worst thing about it is that even if you did go to a vocational school, there are still less and less jobs available.

here's an example of how hard it is to even get a super low paying job http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2013/11/20/dc-residents-clamor-for-walmart-jobs/

more applicants get into harvard than a walmart..

The problem isn't unskilled people, the problem is a shrinking economy; the obvious answer is, "Just go out and make your own job", but this is killed with higher and higher levels of regulation until the only option you have is applying for some other business who can afford the extra fees of operating a business (odds are, this is a corporation; this is not a coincidence.)  All America has to do is unclench its regulatory asshole and we'll be fine, but that doesn't seem to be happening; people are actually asking for more regulation.  When people have more wealth, they have more time with less exhaustion, and when they have more time and more energy, they have the opportunity to become more skilled, and so the economy improves as more work emerges and more wealth is spreading around.

This sounds like there are many unskilled people in America. Why are they unskilled? Is no one interested in learning how to do things that actually get good jobs and pay money?

like i said, "good jobs" are a dying breed. the middle class is dying. and yes, there are a lot of uneducated people in america.. and it's moreso the ethnic minorities that get the shaft. it's not easy being broke, going to school and racking up a big bill for a "possible" job that may or may not pay out. for example, medical assistants pay $20k for training, and once they finish, they often start with $11/hour jobs. their debt just piles up while they earn $20k a year to live off of.

Hey Beetcoin,

I agree with you that the middle class is under assault but it's not from corporations.  If you think income inequality is a problem then reduce all the needless licensing and red tape that has to be followed for someone to start a business.  And how do you know Walmart underpays its employees?  Who are you who thinks they know better than the employee and and employer who arrived at an agreed rate of compensation that the rate they both agreed to was wrong.  If a Walmart employee wants to hire you to negotiate his salary for him that's fine otherwise mind your own business.

corporations can be considered People when texas executes one.

This is why all education should be free. Universities are just a business selling you qualifications that can end up being worth little. And I don't believe in these class systems at all. How do you define classes? By how much money or qualifications people have? The class system is just another way for the elities to divide and discriminate against people and pay them a shit wage.

they underpay their employees because most of them work under 40 hours at near minimum wage, so that they'd qualify for government assistance. when the employees get to that point, they have a designated "specialist" to help employees sign up for government benefits.

they are literally gaming the system so that government can foot the bill. thinking that "businesses know what's better for everyone" is crazy to me. walmart makes billions of dollars, yet they pay their employees so little that they have a food charity drive for them, which they ask other employees to donate.

see here: http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/11/19/walmart-holding-canned-food-drive-for-its-own-employees/

what would make more sense is to up the minimum wage and to cut welfare benefits - reward the people who are willing to work, which is a pretty damn big number.. even if there are a lot of lazy people. the walmart that opened in washington DC had about 22,000 applicants and they accepted something like 2% of those people.

There is much of education that is already free. For example Khan Academy and Wikipedia. Universities just sell a reputation that allows people to trust their backing of their students reputation. If people start to trust reputation of Khan Academy, and trust that it can put its backing behind people who take its courses, then universities may start losing their significance. Hopefully in near future people will rely on their built up online reputation more than on the reputation from single university or single employer.

Raising minimum wage would be bad idea. Price and profit is not just a single set figure. It is balance between profit from cheap price and high volume, and profit from low volume but high price. If taken to extreme, increasing minimum wage will result in much fewer WalMarts, selling at much higher prices, and earning millions on high prices instead of volume. It can also fire employees and invest more in automatic systems to sell with, like self-check out lanes. This will result with less people with job, and those who have jobs and money paying more to buy same products, and becoming poorer too. I know there are supposedly statistics that say that increasing minimum wage has no effect on employment, but those statistics seem completely wrong, considering the greatly increasing employment in India, China, and other developing countries, while stagnating or increasing unemployment rates here in US. The statistics were probably true only while there was no globalization, or the effects were just not being felt until economic crash could not support it any more.
I agree with cutting benefits. only reason corporations can game systems is because there are systems for them to game. If they had employees, and employees could not get health insurance, they would either have very desperate and bad employees, or no one would want to work for them until they started covering insurance. It is best to have well taken care of and productive employees. Right now, they are just making government do taking care of.

what you don't seem to understand is that bigger corporations are making record profits, while employee wages are hitting record lows. the gap is widening, and the economy is dying because of it. there is less demand, since the "middle class" is unable to afford the things that it used to. putting more money in their pockets would mean more goods and services demanded, and big corporations still make billions but maybe not as much.

the richer the rich get, the more power they get. the more power they get, the more rich they get. it's a vicious cycle, and a zero-sum gain. that's why it's called wealth distribution.

"Raising" the minimum wage would only result in more unemployed persons.  If the minimum wage is higher than it is now, workers who's productivity does not justify the increased cost of their employment will be laid off.  Any entry level microeconomic textbook (Mankiw, Krugman, etc.) will cite this same idea.  Price floors (like the minimum wage) create surplus (in the case of min. wage - a surplus of unemployed persons) and price ceilings create shortages.  Again, basic economics that would be cover in the first week or so of any entry level college econ class.

Raising the minimum wage is a feel-good political objective, not grounded well in mainstream economics.  We'd be better off strengthening the earned-income tax credit instead, which would stimulate the aggregate demand that beetcoin is interested in.

You sound like a reasonable guy beetcoin.  I am glad to have this discussion with you.  Regarding Walmart gaming the system you seem to have simultaneously made two of my points for me.  Large corporations love government power because more often than not they use that power to their own advantage whether it is subsidizing their employees or keeping out competition.  If you are arguing against the welfare state which has historically increased poverty when implemented you have my support on that.  

But then you turn around and talk about the minimum wage.  Once again I will ask you the same question.  If an employer and employee both agree to a rate of compensation, who are you to jump in the middle and say the number should be above some arbitrary minimum?  If I want to go work for Google for $5 an hour because I have a large savings account and can live on that small hourly rate comfortably for six months, and I value the education and experience I get working at Google more than money why should you care?  A lot of people don't mind working for a low wage as a way to get their foot in the door and prove themselves before an employer will pay a larger amount.  

don't know where you get your consensus, but refer to this link: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/what-economists-think-about-raising-the-minimum-wage/?_r=0

there is no consensus.


well the problem is that if walmart agrees to pay an unskilled worker the minimum wage at 25 hours a work week, that spills on over to the rest of the tax payers.. because walmart will usher and guide those very people to ask for government handouts, all the while the 4 waltons are in the top 10 in wealth. the 4 combind are worth $100 billion dollars. they are gaming the government handout system while saying "we don't have enough money.. but yeah, we have 100 billion dollars in assets."

they can afford to pay their employees a living wage and make record profits at the same time, like costco does.. it's just that the wealthy people don't want to. if having $1 million more means you'd get to screw people out of $100 million, then no problem i guess.

OK beetcoin, you are refusing to answer my question so I'm moving on from the minimum wage discussion.

As far as corporations being people, person-hood is granted by the state to corporations to help consumers settle disputes with businesses.  If I ride on a Disney theme park ride that crashes and I am injured who do I sue if I can't sue the virtual person that is the Disney Corporation?  Do I sue the ride operators who were working that day, their immediate bosses, the general manager of the park, those who were hired to design and build the ride?  How do I know who was specifically responsible for the ride crashing?  It would be a legal maze to try to unravel which specific person or persons who were responsible.  Luckily I can just sue the corporation because of legal person-hood.  On the flip side the state has granted corporations limited personal liability.  I do not know if this is a fair system but legal person-hood is as much a target as it is a benefit to corporations.

There's a difference between education and qualification. Wikipedia is free knowledge, but it's also free to edit and can contain much inaccuracies and misinformation. It would be currently ridiculous to claim that you studied or got your education from Wikipedia. Obviously you can use it to educate yourself, but without a qualification how can you prove to any one that you are fit for a specific role or job, other than actually taking a new test (which would then negate the point anyway). And when I say education I mean up until University level and to actually gain a qualification. Money should be taken out of the equation for education as it puts those who cannot afford to go at an unfair disadvantage. Also, people should not become brutally in debt for half their life just because they want to better themselves. While obviously qualifications are flawed and can be cheated, a online presence or reputation would probably be much worse.

The Khan Academy is good in principle, and is potentially great for people who don't have access or cannot afford to go to university, but as you say people need to trust the reputation of it before the qualification would become valuable, but at the moment it doesn't seem to be.

I'm not going to say that corporations are necessarily people, but it would be unfair and unjust to not give them equal rights.

They're definitely benefiting from making decisions and policies that are normally reserved for individual, private citizens.  I do not think they should be extended these courtesies.  They should not have the same rights and protections as a person because they don't interact with society in the way a person does.  They exist solely to protect business interests and profit at any cost.  The fact that a cost may have an associated human toll makes little difference when cutting costs and maximizing profit.  Legal liability is the only factor taken into consideration.  No, a corporation should not be able to mandate that their insurance policies not pay for birth control for women on grounds of a religious objection.  The fact that these birth control drugs do more than any other low-cost, available drugs to single-handedly prevent a large portion of ovarian and cervical cancers among other pathological conditions in women does not even register as a counterpoint to the corporations concerned.  This is in spite of the fact that this religious policy will undoubtedly cause healthcare costs to rise long-term for the company.  Profit will be affected at some point.  

If treating a corporation like a person means allowing the implementation of policies that are counterproductive to not only the people working for the corporation but also the corporation itself, there emerges a serious problem.  Now, it is not only rival corporations that are the subject of deliberate sabotage and hampering from a rival corporation.  Employees of a company may absorb the cost of the same style of self-sacrificing tactic that is instead directed exclusively at them for religious reasons.   This may continue past the point of profit being affected as a result.  Everybody loses.

What
the
fuck?

That is actually not true, and is a lie that tells only half of the story. If you look at your country, you will see that rich corporations are making more profits, and citizens of your country are getting lower wages. What you ignore is that corporations are global, and now so are employees. Corporations are making record profits because they are hiring more employees in other, typically poorer countries, and if you take all of corporation employees into account, and compare their wages to what they were before, you will see that employee wages around the world have gone up substantially. Sure, wages of employees of your rich country may have gone down or lost value from inflation, but wages of employees in poor countries like India went from less than $1 an hour to almost like low wages in Europe and USA in some places. Bit reason is not because of corporation greed, but because of rich country being greedy and isolated, but now economy spreading over rest of the world, and wages averaging out with much lower wages in places which used to be isolated. Their wages were so low that they are bringing global average down, but it is only temporary, and will likely improve in future. It definitely improved for those poor and isolated countries.


Not necessarily. Without corporations, Disney would still be business owned by person or group of people. And if these people are smart, they will have business insurance to take care of such problems. You would sue Disney business, prove to insurance you did get hurt, and they would pay out. Because Disney is known as high reputation company, it is good chance that as soon as you got hurt, they would grab you, quickly take you out of park in secret, and help fix you and pay you so you do not complain and ruin their reputation, because Disney is supposed to be happy, safe, fun, family place.

Corporations were intended to be limited projects for public good that were dissolved after their purpose was achieved.  They were only granted under extremely limited circumstances.

Haha, but I think Kleenex were intended for runny noses and puppies.