Oklahoma wins one in Fed court.

[digitalandanalog]

Remind me never to hire you...

Why, exactly?

Because I do not like bowing to corporate masters who would have me disarmed and are unwilling to protect me in the absence of the ability to protect myself?

[KD5NRH]

This argument rests upon the premise that free association is a privilege granted by government, not a right held by the people.

Free association, as in a normal partnership, is one thing.  When you want the association to be incorporated as a separate entity from the people who form it, absoving them from liability for its actions, then you're asking the government for special treatment.

[roo_ster]

Free association, as in a normal partnership, is one thing.  When you want the association to be incorporated as a separate entity from the people who form it, absoving them from liability for its actions, then you're asking the government for special treatment.

Perxactly.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Free association, as in a normal partnership, is one thing.  When you want the association to be incorporated as a separate entity from the people who form it, absoving them from liability for its actions, then you're asking the government for special treatment.

The ability of people to come together to form an enterprise, and for that enterprise to own and control its own assets and resources, and to be responsible for its own actions, is an inherent part of being free people.  It ought not require kowtowing to the government or giving up any rights.  Infringing on the rights of an association infringes on the rihgts of the people who form the association.  If the people have to give up their rights as a condition for associating with each other, then they really don't have any right to associate at all.

It is irrelevant whether people own property or a corporation owns the property instead.  The owners, whoever or whatever they happen to be, have the right to control how the property is used.  That's what it means to own property.  Ownership is ownership is ownership.  There are not two different types of ownership, one for people and a different one for associations of people.

Anyway, the point is that property ownership rights aren't lessened because the owner is a corporation.  Corporations don't have to negotiate away their property rights just to become a corporation.  Corporations have just as much right to exclude guns from their property as individuals do.

[roo_ster]

The ability of people to come together to form an enterprise, and for that enterprise to own and control its own assets and resources, and to be responsible for its own actions, is an inherent part of being free people.  It ought not require kowtowing to the government or giving up any rights.  Infringing on the rights of an association infringes on the rihgts of the people who form the association.  If the people have to give up their rights as a condition for associating with each other, then they really don't have any right to associate at all.

It is irrelevant whether people own property or a corporation owns the property instead.  The owners, whoever or whatever they happen to be, have the right to control how the property is used.  That's what it means to own property.  Ownership is ownership is ownership.  There are not two different types of ownership, one for people and a different one for associations of people.

Anyway, the point is that property ownership rights aren't lessened because the owner is a corporation.  Corporations don't have to negotiate away their property rights just to become a corporation.  Corporations have just as much right to exclude guns from their property as individuals do.

It is all about the bennies.  Want the bennies?  Follow the rules. 

Your argument amounts to, "But I don't want to give up anything for special treatment!" 

My kids try that on on me too, but I usually don't buy it.

Perhaps you are under the impression that folks can not voluntarily enter into agreements with .gov and trade freedom of action for benefits?  Corporations are not the only example.  Marriage is another.  Military service is yet another. 

This is not some sort of new, out of the blue concept developed to antagonize the property uber alles crowd.

[MicroBalrog]

So you're arguing a corporation cannot exist in an anarchy?

[KD5NRH]

So you're arguing a corporation cannot exist in an anarchy?

Not in the form that it does now; the entire board would be tarred and feathered for things like the Enron scandal, rather than being insulated from the actions of the corporation and left to retire to their summer homes with their personal assets intact.

[seeker_two]

Not in the form that it does now; the entire board would be tarred and feathered for things like the Enron scandal, rather than being insulated from the actions of the corporation and left to retire to their summer homes with their personal assets intact.

...like a partnership among a large group of members.....that makes sense....

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It is all about the bennies.  Want the bennies?  Follow the rules. 

Your argument amounts to, "But I don't want to give up anything for special treatment!" 

My kids try that on on me too, but I usually don't buy it.

Perhaps you are under the impression that folks can not voluntarily enter into agreements with .gov and trade freedom of action for benefits?  Corporations are not the only example.  Marriage is another.  Military service is yet another. 

This is not some sort of new, out of the blue concept developed to antagonize the property uber alles crowd.

All of the supposed "special treatments" you've outlined are not special or unusual at all.  They're simply the practical result of government acknowledging and respecting the rights of people to associate.  Government cannot treat an enterprise any other way, not if it intends to respect the rights of the people involved to come together and put up some of their assets to create an enterprise.

Your argument is fundamentally false.  It's premised on the idea that people may only associate after they've appeased government.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Not in the form that it does now; the entire board would be tarred and feathered for things like the Enron scandal, rather than being insulated from the actions of the corporation and left to retire to their summer homes with their personal assets intact.

Huh?  Do you imagine that the people behind the Enron fraud were somehow shielded from the consequences because Enron was a corporation?  The people responsible were indicted.  The corporation didn't shield them from that.

Of course, not everyone involved in Enron were prosecuted.  That's because not everyone involved with Enron were responsible for the fraud.  Is this the supposed "special treatment" you claim corporations receive?  This is not special treatment, this is the way things should be.

[roo_ster]

All of the supposed "special treatments" you've outlined are not special or unusual at all.  They're simply the practical result of government acknowledging and respecting the rights of people to associate.  Government cannot treat an enterprise any other way, not if it intends to respect the rights of the people involved to come together and put up some of their assets to create an enterprise.

Your argument is fundamentally false.  It's premised on the idea that people may only associate after they've appeased government.

Sorry, you are basically, fundamentally incorrect.

Folks can come together for a business venture via contracts that require no such thing as incorporation as performed by gov't.

Doing so does not allow them to:
1. Create a business entity that survives the deaths of the contracted partners.  A corporation as granted by the state can survive the death of any or all partners/investors.  Not so when folks contract between each other.
2. Choose how profit is taxed in the manner most advantageous to the investors: personal income vs corporate income.  Different taxes with different rules.  The general case of X number of folks contracting together for a business venture would have profits taxed as personal income of the investors, period.
3. Reduce/eliminate personal liability for actions of the corporation.  The case I posit above would leave the business partners personally liable for the actions of the business.
4. Prevent personal assets from being seized to make good the bad debt of the contracted business.  If GM goes tits up/bankrupt, shareholders of GM are not pursued and made to sell their house to cover GM's bad debt.  OTOH, in the above example of a contracted business relationship between individuals, if the venture tanks, the investors are vulnerable to having personal assets seized to make good the business debt.

Want theses benefits?  Then render unto Caesar.

Huh?  Do you imagine that the people behind the Enron fraud were somehow shielded from the consequences because Enron was a corporation?  The people responsible were indicted.  The corporation didn't shield them from that.

Of course, not everyone involved in Enron were prosecuted.  That's because not everyone involved with Enron were responsible for the fraud.  Is this the supposed "special treatment" you claim corporations receive?  This is not special treatment, this is the way things should be.

HTG, that is because many of the Enronners committed crimes.  Incorporation does not protect someone from the consequences of committing crimes.  Going bankrupt is not a crime and neither is being on the receiving end of a lawsuit.  Fraud, cooking the books, etc. are.  Matter of fact, one of the crimes committed by Enron employees was not complying with gov't requirements on honest reporting of their balance statements.

[K Frame]

This left politics in the dust a long time ago, if it was ever there to being with.

Pick it up in Round Table if you want with a new thread.