[ExI] Social right to have a living

Samantha Atkins sjatkins at mac.com
Thu Jun 30 01:30:36 UTC 2011

On 06/28/2011 08:34 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> 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.

Bogus scenario as (a) it is difficult for any company to be the only one 
in an area and (b) it is much too easy to move if local conditions get 
too bad.   If the conditions get too bad then the company can't hire and 
keep good employees, especially not more than unskilled to semi-skilled 
labor.  If it gets too outrageous in its prices or other policies it 
will go uncompetitive relative to other firms or possible firm in the 
same type of business.  Self limiting..

> 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?

Sure.  Actually it is perfectly legal for you or I to create our own 
currency any time we want to.  We might not find anyone that wants to 
accept it though.

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

Actually the above did not establish a state per se at all so it can't 
quality as fascist.

>> 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.

Default on a contract and you get called in front of the DRO (dispute 
resolution organization) agreed to as part of the contract.  If you 
default on the DROs judgment or blow them off  then others will be very 
unlikely to do business with you or trust you.  There are also escrow 
type arrangements without involving a state.  You don't need a state for 
such defaulting on agreements to receive much negative feedback.   You 
don't get impartiality from a government.

- samantha

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list