[ExI] Social right to have a living

Kelly Anderson kellycoinguy at gmail.com
Wed Jun 29 03:34:15 UTC 2011

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:03 AM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> OTOH, let us forget governments and their misdeeds. Let us take the
> more libertarian concept of a commercial company and make a story. The
> company gets bigger and bigger. It has shareholders and employees. The
> relationships with them are contractual, so this is fine, right? The
> company adopts internal regulations (well within its rights) and
> general terms and conditions of trade and of employment. The company
> buys land. The company become the main living framework on a given
> territory, and amongst other benefits take care of increasingly
> numerous aspects of the private life of its human resources.
> Shareholders and employees increasingly tend to become one and the
> same.

Sounds like commercial totalitarianism.

> At a point in time the company declares independence, and stop
> recognising any superior, national legal system. Perhaps it creates
> its own currency, why not. Libertarian dream, right?

Wrong. You seem to equate corporate state-ism with libertarian views.
Corporate state conglomeration is fascism, not libertarianism.

> But it still pay
> pensions according to retirement plans, and above all dividends to its
> shareholders, simply because of such quality, allowing or demanding
> them to participate to shareholders' meetings to identify with binding
> resolutions the optimal corporate course and policies and directors.

The problem with this from a libertarian viewpoint is that without the
state overseeing the corporation, there is nobody to enforce the
contracts between the corporation and other people/entities. The need
for an impartial judicial above corporations and individuals is
clearly part of the libertarian view of the world.

> What exactly is the difference between such a scenario and a
> "socialist" regime? That the shareholders/employees may vote with
> their feet and emigrate, relinquishing whatever rights they had
> before? I think many socialists would find such a modification to,
> say, the more typical Sovietic regimes as fairly acceptable as long as
> the rest remains in place.

I think you have invented a form of fascism. This does not seem ideal
to me in any way shape or form.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list