Limited liability in a free market society...

[erowe1]

Such as?

Having property owned in the name of a company.

The argument for marriage in the free market is that is basically a contract between two consenting parties.

Same thing with corporations.

[erowe1]

Doesn't really change anything though. There's more of an incentive to bankrupt a company and squeeze every penny you can out of it before hand if

1) You know you aren't personally liable for the debt.
2) The creditors can't go after you personally for every penny you squeezed out of the company before the bankruptcy.

Again, why would a bank loan money to such an entity? What's in it for the bank?

[erowe1]

How is a state sponsored entity compatible with the free market? Marriage in it's current form certainly isn't.

A state entity is not. But corporations and marriages don't have to be state entities. If they weren't state entities, that doesn't mean that such things would not exist. Your phrase "in its current form" is pretty important, in the case of corporations as well as marriages.

And I don't really see how this is an answer to my question. Who are some of the economists you've read who believe that corporations are incompatible with a free market?

[PaulConventionWV]

I think it's a mistake to say either way would happen, I think such a market would see both and in the end a market strictly regulated by it's consumers i.e. a free market would favor the better of the two, or invent a third.

The problem is right now we don't have a choice because there's just too much danger in risking your personal assets.

The market can't give rise to legal immunity. The market is completely and wholly separate from any legal or governing entity and, in its purest form, has nothing to do with government. Of course, as we have seen, the government certainly can stick its hands in the market, but not the other way around, so it's impossible for the market to give rise to legal immunity just by market forces alone. The market can only give rise to voluntary actions. Nothing in the legal system is voluntary in principle.

[Bohner]

Having property owned in the name of a company.

That would fall under limited liability.

Same thing with corporations.

Not really... Because even those harmed by the corporation, who never signed any kind of agreement, is not able to go after the string pullers who is ultimately responsible for the negligence, since the courts recognize the corporation as a person. Therefore, it was the corporation who committed the negligent act, and not the string puller.

Again, why would a bank loan money to such an entity? What's in it for the bank?

Interest on the loan.

A state entity is not. But corporations and marriages don't have to be state entities. If they weren't state entities, that doesn't mean that such things would not exist. Your phrase "in its current form" is pretty important, in the case of corporations as well as marriages.

It's more about the limited liability that wouldn't exist. But without limited liability, there really isn't any reason to incorporate to begin with.

And I don't really see how this is an answer to my question. Who are some of the economists you've read who believe that corporations are incompatible with a free market?

I saw a couple of debates and articles on Mises. I forget the names.

Doesn't really matter though... I'm not here to turn this into a debate based on an appeal to authority.

[PaulConventionWV]

And you don't think it would continue to exist in a free market?

I actually don't. The Catholic Church was the government in centuries past in Europe. All of its doctrine was spawned from obedience to the church -- not to God -- and tithing, which served as taxation. Everything the Catholic church is now is a result of its status in the past. Very little has changed. It may be hard to get rid of now, but the organization isn't a legitimate free market child.

[Steven Douglas]

Corporate personhood... a different matter. Personhood as today practiced in law is also pure crap, but if we are to have corporations then certain aspects of human rights should apply to them. Police should not be able to waltz into a corporate office and seize, say, documentation without due process. That sort of thing would likely damage an economy - set in chaos in fact. We know police cannot be trusted, and therefore this protection should remain... in part.

Good post. On this issue there are two things I would change, the first being a ZERO CONFLATION law. Corporate personhood, as it were, is never, ever to be confused with individual personhood, despite the fact that some rights, powers, privileges, etc., may be common to both. So to begin with:

1) Two entirely separate sets of laws: one for corporations, another for free and natural individuals. And ne'er the twain shall be conflated. You can NEVER have one law that applies to both. In such a case, there must be two separate laws, which would eliminate even the need for disambiguation.

Then, if there is a constitutional challenge by individuals, over actual unalienable rights, an obnoxious or unconstitutional law really can be nullified and stricken--not held up and left on the books because it MIGHT apply to corporations and others. But it would be stricken from that set of laws only. Corporations would have to issue their own separate challenges if the same law existed on their books -- and could not appeal in the same way, or on the same grounds.

2) Most Favored Nation status for Citizens. No corporate power, right, privilege, exemption, benefit, entitlement or advantage of any kind may be given to corporations that does not automatically apply to each and every free and natural Citizen. In other words, no artificial advantage to being a corporation, and no artificial disadvantage for being a free and natural Citizen.

Advantage: free and natural Citizens (at all times)

[PaulConventionWV]

I am just picturing running a multi-billion dollar organisation out of a personal account.

All revenue is income, profit doesn't exist? So taxation is at the maximum personal rate on the whole revenue not on profits?

Help me out, I use accounting books to prop up tables...

Couldn't you just set up a joint account and have your accountants manage it?

[PaulConventionWV]

No... They check your credit, and maybe require you to put down some assets as collateral. Maybe raise the interest rate if they view your loan as a risky one.

Doesn't really change anything though. There's more of an incentive to bankrupt a company and squeeze every penny you can out of it before hand if

1) You know you aren't personally liable for the debt.
2) The creditors can't go after you personally for every penny you squeezed out of the company before the bankruptcy.

If a loan is risky, doesn't raising interest rates on the loan only make it more risky? I'm not sure why a bank would do that.

[erowe1]

I actually don't. The Catholic Church was the government in centuries past in Europe. All of its doctrine was spawned from obedience to the church -- not to God -- and tithing, which served as taxation. Everything the Catholic church is now is a result of its status in the past. Very little has changed. It may be hard to get rid of now, but the organization isn't a legitimate free market child.

I don't agree. But even if so, I'd ask the same question about every other kind of church, synagogue, club, and corporation of every kind. The idea that these things wouldn't exist without the state somehow creating them doesn't make any sense to me.