In an NAP centric Society would our sort of corporate 'person exist?

[paleocon1]

It is my believe that as a Society evolves in an NAP compliant direction that the concept and reality of a corporate 'person' with rights and immunities superior to real people would become extinct as these 14th amendment corporations are largely tools for evasion of personal accountability by real people. If my actions or those of my minions cause injury I should not be able to limit my liability by hiding hend a corporation as we currently recognise them.

[Sam I am]

There's nothing about the NAP that prevents multiple people from pooling their resources and making a business.

There's nothing about the NAP that prevents managers of the business from selling stakes in that business to a multitude of investors, and sharing risk among investors.

There's nothing about the NAP that makes it easier to single out a single person in a corporation who's at fault for something.

There's nothing about the NAP that really does anything to prevent a corporate entity from existing.

[The Gold Standard]

The NAP really doesn't have anything to do with this. In a free society, corporations wouldn't get any of the government protections they get now.

[fisharmor]

What is a corporation?

Is it something other than exactly that - a fictitious person with superior rights and immunities to real people?

If you take that away, are you not destroying the concept of a corporation altogether?

[Sam I am]

What is a corporation?

Is it something other than exactly that - a fictitious person with superior rights and immunities to real people?

If you take that away, are you not destroying the concept of a corporation altogether?

A corporation is an organization of people that has it's own identity that is distinct from the individual identity of it's members.

It's the concept that allows an individual salesman of a company to sell property on behalf of that company as a whole instead of on behalf of himself.
It's what allows consumers to sue the company if there was something wrong with the goods/property instead of putting the salesman on the hook for just regurgitating the information that came from other members of the company.

"superior rights and immunities" does not fall within the definition of Corporation.

[acptulsa]

There's nothing about the NAP that makes it easier to single out a single person in a corporation who's at fault for something.

I'm not so sure about that. The NAP could be used to justify prosecuting individual employees for violating laws and violating the rights of others, regardless of whether or not they were 'just following orders'.

In any case, there's certainly nothing about the NAP that would make it harder to single out a single corporate employee.

"superior rights and immunities" does not fall within the definition of Corporation.

True. But I'm not so sure that the NAP couldn't be used as a reason to repeal some of the laws that make corporate desires greater in the eyes of the law (in certain jurisdictions, at least) than individual rights.

[Cabal]

Corporations are a product of the State. I don't think corporations as we understand them would be able to exist without the State.

[Ronin Truth]

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...53.ZVw3eO6ZcAs

[paleocon1]

Corporations are a product of the State. I don't think corporations as we understand them would be able to exist without the State.

True observation, I believe. In an NAP compliant Society I do believe it would be possible for a group of individuals to write a set of bylaws which pools capital for a business purpose- say manufacture of autos or airplanes or pharma drugs. I would expect though that the individual shareholders would be liable both jointly and severally for any damages owed due to malfeasance on the part of their business. Liable not just to the extent of their investment but liable to the extent of their total assets.

That said, I expect it would also be possible to write sales and service contracts in such a manner that if you stupidly blind yourself with a laser pointer or jam a screw driver in your eye you and the Shysters Union don't get a payday at the expense of makers of screw drivers and laser pointers.

[otherone]

True observation, I believe. In an NAP compliant Society I do believe it would be possible for a group of individuals to write a set of bylaws which pools capital for a business purpose- say manufacture of autos or airplanes or pharma drugs. I would expect though that the individual shareholders would be liable both jointly and severally for any damages owed due to malfeasance on the part of their business. Liable not just to the extent of their investment but liable to the extent of their total assets.

ohmergawd.
Now THAT'S accountability.

[Cabal]

True observation, I believe. In an NAP compliant Society I do believe it would be possible for a group of individuals to write a set of bylaws which pools capital for a business purpose- say manufacture of autos or airplanes or pharma drugs. I would expect though that the individual shareholders would be liable both jointly and severally for any damages owed due to malfeasance on the part of their business. Liable not just to the extent of their investment but liable to the extent of their total assets.

That said, I expect it would also be possible to write sales and service contracts in such a manner that if you stupidly blind yourself with a laser pointer or jam a screw driver in your eye you and the Shysters Union don't get a payday at the expense of makers of screw drivers and laser pointers.

Sounds about right.

Corporations as we understand them now are much more than merely groups of pooled capital. They enjoy all kinds of help from the State and its monopoly of legal violence, from subsidies, to barriers to entry for competitors and monopolization of the market, to legal protections, and so on. I have no doubt there'd still be collective business practices of some kind in an NAP compliant society, but I can't see such entities reaching the levels that they enjoy under the State without using violence to get there.

A lack of patents alone would wipe many of them out, I suspect.