My point is that the government is the one enabling contract law to exist, by making it enforceable. And so they get to say which contract terms are enforceable; and so they get to say which mutual agreements between private parties are iterated prisoners' dilemmas, and which are just ultimatum games.
Securities are valuable assets for the same reason that greenbacks have value: because the state is standing there ensuring everyone's playing a fair game. If the state didn't punish counterfeiting, greenbacks would be worthless. If the state didn't punish non-dilutive duplicate share sales (i.e. selling the same whole pie to two people), securities would be worthless.
As such, the state is creating the worth of those things, from nothing. Your effort into a corporation is additive, but the government's pre-invested effort into building the framework on which corporations rest is multiplicative, with the multiplier having started off, before that effort, at 0. Neither fiat money nor securities work in a lawless world. The government—that is, the People—get all the credit for making those things possible. Should they thus not get the reward? (Commodities do work in a lawless world, but not through tokens representing them. You'd have to bring those 10K bushels of wheat along with you if you want any credibility, which is pretty inefficient.)
Let me put it this way: if we were starting with a form of socialism where corporations exist, and have founders and executives and boards of directors, but no shareholders, with the government instead earning all corporate profits (which it then spends on things like UBI); and then someone proposed a capitalist class that would earn some of those profits instead, taking them directly out of the UBI budget... would that proposal be justifiable through any particular argument to natural rights/freedoms? There might be a practical argument, in terms of a profit motive incentivizing entrepreneurship and investment, leading to a "rising tide"; but would there be an ethical argument in favor?
> History has not been kind to nations whose governments break those rules and started nationalizing corporations. Not too long ago, North Korea was the side with the industry, railroads, hydro-elec dams, steel mills and manufacturing plants.
North Korea isn't a particularly good example; their economic stall is a result of trade embargoes more than anything. (They're actually doing as well as could be expected, given that they're an isolated, non-globalized economy whose only trading partners are much larger globalized economies [China, Russia] who don't need anything NK could provide.)
Meanwhile, China's own mostly-nationalized corporations do pretty well for themselves.
Hell, even Canada has tons of Crown Corporations, and everyone here is begging our federal government to nationalize the cellular infrastructure (and then lease it out fairly) because it'd be much better than the current oligopoly situation we're in.
I agree the contributions of many of the participants is multiplicative, but I don't agree that government is the most important.
Corporations can't exist without some entity enforcing contracts and agreements. That is sometimes the government but it is often also 3rd party arbitrators. In any case though government provides the ultimate backstop.
Most corporations also wouldn't exist without the strong will of a dedicated founder to drive the shared belief and vision of what the corporation could become even when the barriers seemed insurmountable.
Similarly, most corporations wouldn't exist without those early investors willing to stake a portion of their wealth or fund's credibility on those founders.
To a lesser extent, early employees also play a significant role. They take on risk and give up lucrative salaries at larger companies in exchange for more impact on a product and the potential of a big payout down the road.
If any of these entities/groups are not present, the corporation fails. All are needed, not just government.
Look at history, 150 years ago to be allowed to form a corporation you needed a legislature to pass an act after they believed that your enterprise was in the public good. Being able to form a limited liability company is a right granted by law and subject to limits.
Not that people pay attention today but if you read your states laws there are limits to what corporation can do, be named, etc.
The article treats this principle basically as ambiguous.
So this principle could be not perfectly defined for some, or disputable, according to the article.
However, you miss the point.
Saying that this principle is just not strictly defined (according to the article) does not make it a reason to put it to the trash directly. You have to compare to the status quo.
For me what the article supports (implicitly) behind this reasoning would be that the status quo (coaction and violence by governors) is better: hey, just proceed with coaction because NAP is not perfect? I think there is a lot of consensus on things that are wrong that we would all accept. Consider it a subset of NAP. The bigger the subset, the better for everyone.
In fact, there is a very clear principle, at least in my opinion that can define things way less ambiguously: it exists the negative or natural law and positive law.
For me, basically, negative rights should be inviolable and positive rights are not rights as themselves in my opinion: none of us will ever have infinite capacity or power for an arbitrary action, and in doing so you will violate the negative rights of others: I want to date this girl (but she does not), I want to go to Harvard (but I need to spoil others and disregard their academic CVs and skip the line), I want to have 10000 usd per month (but my employer built the business and won't pay that)... no, those are not rights. Those are things we earn by ourselves or figure out how to do.
How does this principle work when two sides have differing opinions on what constitutes the greater aggression (IE abortion where a woman's rights over her body are up against the question of when human life begins)
Vaccines.. at what level of disease severity should the government forcibly inject the entire populace with a vaccine to ensure that no one can aggress on another by infecting them (on purpose or accidentally).
If one jumbo jet passenger has a severe peanut allergy and other opens a bag of peanuts, is it an act of aggression?
If it is you who voted down without replying it must mean I am right. Long live NAP man. There are many of us who are civilicized people. We do not want to harm anyone or have excuses all the time to do it.
1. I could be against abortion but I would try to convince someone to not do it. Never force them.
2. this is a trick question in the sense that it is true we can damage others. But it is also true you can damage yourself with a vaccine right? So I do not see a reason for anyone to force u. There is a reasonable risk here on both sides. What I will not do is to get aggressive if someone does not let me in somewhere. After all it is a fact I havr higher chances of transferring the disease and due to my conscious choice I try to not damage myself but also not actively damage others.
3. I do not think a person with a severe allergy would not inform the crew or just avoid the flight or set herself in special and guaranteed conditions. We are not kids. We DO know better than all these paternalist governments that treat us as idiots what to do.I have far more confidence in people than in people who has to dictate coactively to others what to do with no consequence all the time.
Freedom is responsibility my friend.
If you want paternalism you can pay yours I can figure out how to deal with my stuff and not damaging others on my way.
What you cannot do is to try others realize your view of the world. You convince them or leave them alone and let them do their own way. I think it is the more fair position by far.
With my view you can have all these things you wish and I do not need to participate in them. I do not want any of those benefits either. If I want one, I can pay for it or join.
With other views this is not even possible. So this way of doing it is just superior in my view.
But I see many people afraid of letting people choose. Instead what u have is a small amount choosing for the rest with evil incentives on top of it. A much worse alternative in fact. And one where people always blame others of their own problems.
government is our current paradigm. There could be way more distributed ways to keep all this stuff safe. Do not think it is the only paradigm. It is the only one we lived in.
Securities are valuable assets for the same reason that greenbacks have value: because the state is standing there ensuring everyone's playing a fair game. If the state didn't punish counterfeiting, greenbacks would be worthless. If the state didn't punish non-dilutive duplicate share sales (i.e. selling the same whole pie to two people), securities would be worthless.
As such, the state is creating the worth of those things, from nothing. Your effort into a corporation is additive, but the government's pre-invested effort into building the framework on which corporations rest is multiplicative, with the multiplier having started off, before that effort, at 0. Neither fiat money nor securities work in a lawless world. The government—that is, the People—get all the credit for making those things possible. Should they thus not get the reward? (Commodities do work in a lawless world, but not through tokens representing them. You'd have to bring those 10K bushels of wheat along with you if you want any credibility, which is pretty inefficient.)
Let me put it this way: if we were starting with a form of socialism where corporations exist, and have founders and executives and boards of directors, but no shareholders, with the government instead earning all corporate profits (which it then spends on things like UBI); and then someone proposed a capitalist class that would earn some of those profits instead, taking them directly out of the UBI budget... would that proposal be justifiable through any particular argument to natural rights/freedoms? There might be a practical argument, in terms of a profit motive incentivizing entrepreneurship and investment, leading to a "rising tide"; but would there be an ethical argument in favor?
> History has not been kind to nations whose governments break those rules and started nationalizing corporations. Not too long ago, North Korea was the side with the industry, railroads, hydro-elec dams, steel mills and manufacturing plants.
North Korea isn't a particularly good example; their economic stall is a result of trade embargoes more than anything. (They're actually doing as well as could be expected, given that they're an isolated, non-globalized economy whose only trading partners are much larger globalized economies [China, Russia] who don't need anything NK could provide.)
Meanwhile, China's own mostly-nationalized corporations do pretty well for themselves.
Hell, even Canada has tons of Crown Corporations, and everyone here is begging our federal government to nationalize the cellular infrastructure (and then lease it out fairly) because it'd be much better than the current oligopoly situation we're in.