When the Private Sector Is the Enemy

[Brian4Liberty]

When the Private Sector Is the Enemy
By Ryan McMaken - 02/14/2023

Last Wednesday’s House Oversight Committee meeting provided some much-needed insight into how corporate personnel at Twitter (before Elon Musk’s takeover) had essentially turned the company into an adjunct of the federal government and its intelligence agencies.

Present to testify were high-ranking company personnel who oversaw Twitter during the covid panic and in the early days of the Hunter Biden laptop controversy. Specifically, they were former employees Yoel Roth, Anika Collier Navaroli, and Vijaya Gadde. All three had titles with words like “trust” and “safety” in them. There was also James Baker, a former Twitter attorney and a former FBI agent who promoted the now-disproven “Russiagate” theory. It was clear from their testimony that all four saw themselves as righteous arbiters of truth and that anyone who disagreed with their views was guilty of “misinformation.” Conveniently, this “misinformation” overwhelmingly tended to coincide with these employees’ personal political views.

In practice, however, these keepers of “trust” and “safety” did not function as disinterested fact-checkers, journalists, or stewards of any kind. They certainly weren’t entrepreneurs focused on delivering the highest value for their owners. Rather, they were acting as extensions of the US administrative state, the FBI, and the Democratic Party.
...
Corporate America’s Willing Cooperation

Unfortunately, Twitter is not alone in these sorts of activities. Throughout the covid panic, social media corporations including Alphabet (Google) and Meta (Facebook) routinely banned users and deleted posts that contradicted the “official” positions on a variety of policies. These three corporations worked tirelessly to promote those policies and “facts” favored by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) while hiding or explicitly denouncing as “misleading” or “misinformation” anything that dissented from the “official” position.
...
All of this serves as an important reminder that private companies will often actively seek to serve the regimes they live under, and not just as a result of active regulation or “pressure” from regime officials. Contrary to the old myth that “big business” is a “persecuted minority,” the truth is that tech companies—and corporate America in general—have often shown they are enthusiastic supporters of the technocracy and its efforts to control and plan society.

Technolibertarianism, RIP

Twenty years ago, one still commonly encountered the opinion among advocates of free markets that the advent of the internet would make it far more difficult for governments to control the flow of information—and even the flow of goods and services. This “technolibertarianism,” as it is sometimes called, placed a great amount of hope in the notion that companies like Google and Amazon would enable ordinary people to publish and distribute ideas and goods that legacy media and other major corporations had no interest in fostering.

These were the days when Google’s motto was “Don’t Be Evil” and many people actually believed that workers at Google were somehow tribunes of ordinary people. Such a notion sounds outlandish and naïve today, but many reasonable people believed this in the heady days of the early 2000s, when anyone could start his own website and there was a flowering of antiestablishment online publications that did depart from what could be had in the so-called mainstream economy.

Moreover, thanks to the fact there was no dominant aggregator of the content produced by these sites, online news and commentary functioned in a much more egalitarian environment in which there was no final say on which web sites offered the “correct” view. Internet users, if they wanted to move beyond the usual mainstream media outlets at all, largely needed to curate their own information sources. The result was a highly decentralized internet with countless information sources that functioned on a more or less equal footing.

Social Media Centralized Online Information

Then came social media. Early on, this too was heralded as a new development that would make it even easier for antiestablishment and off-beat ideas to gain some traction with large numbers of people. In the early days of social media, after all, it was possible to post a narrative-bashing article or photo that might go viral if readers found it interesting.

In those days, the masters of social media had not yet begun their widespread efforts to manage and channel content in ways that suited their ideological preferences.

But here we are in 2023, and it’s quite a different story. Social media companies have managed to replace old-school self-curation with controlled “news feeds.” This is more “convenient” for casual users, so rather than place their trust in dozens of independent news sources, readers rely on one or two social media companies to tell them what to read and what to believe.

The new “entrepreneurs” who were supposed to usher in a new era of techno-rebellion against the state took on a very different form. Today, the tech “elite” looks like those Twitter executives. They are militant conformists who collaborate with the regime. They demand compliance—both in thought and in deed—with their preferred technocrats, ranging from CDC bureaucrats to shadowy intelligence personnel.

The dreams of technolibertarianism thus proved to be founded on very little. It is true that if one goes looking for it, one can find all sorts of information online that exposes state lies and corruption. Yet the regime has also found ways to distract from all this by amplifying its own positions at the expense of dissenting views, which are labeled “misinformation.” Countless millions, too lazy to investigate anything beyond their Facebook feeds, consume what they are told to consume.

Why They Favor the Regime

But why do the managers and officials of these companies seem to overwhelmingly side with the regime and its policies?

Much of the answer lies in the fact that these executives and other members of the elite have been educated to have the “correct” views. In recent years, it has become all the more apparent that voters with the most years of formal schooling are more likely to vote Democrat. If we assume that voting Democrat is a proxy for unquestioningly supporting the official government positions on most everything—not an outlandish position—then we can see the nexus between formal schooling and support for government mandates, lockdowns, and FBI meddling and spying.
...
This union was on full display at the House Oversight Committee meeting last week. Those who viewed the testimony were able to see what the masters of tech really believe about freedom and dissent. It turns out they think freedom of speech is dangerous. They think a tiny corporate elite is morally obligated to guide and control public discourse.

The Exploiter Class versus the Productive Class

This is all a helpful reminder that the true divide in society is not between the “private sector” and the “government sector.” Since at least the days of mercantilism, the private sector has often been eager to assist the regime in imposing more controls on the public. Rather, the true divide is between the exploiter class and the productive class. The productive are the true entrepreneurs, the net taxpayers, and those who receive no special favors from the regime. The exploiter class is the FBI, the bureaucracy, the tax collectors, and the other enforcers of the state’s regulatory apparatus. But the exploiter class also includes those “private sector” entities that seek to help the exploiters carry out their mission. Clearly, this includes a sizable portion of today’s corporate class, especially in Silicon Valley.
...
More: https://mises.org/wire/when-private-sector-enemy

[osan]

These so-called "big-tech" companies rely on the false premise that they are "private" entities to justify their actions, which include censorship, banning, etc. This, of course, is false in several veins.

For one thing, any private company that entangles itself with "government" is no longer effectively private. For another, I would say that the moment a company goes public, which is to say that it has conducted an IPO, it is no longer a private entity, but an effectively public body, thereby removing the rights and associated protections of being private.

I don't much care what a truly private corporation does, within the usual constraints. If that Christian social media site wants to censor posts by those in support of a Satanic political candidate, let them. I do not share the same view regarding public companies or those who are in any way entangled with "government", including accepting any tax monies.

The solution to these problems of "big-tech" seem to me quite simple. The problem is most people cannot see them because they cannot properly determine the categories into which each entity belongs.

[Madison320]

For one thing, any private company that entangles itself with "government" is no longer effectively private. For another, I would say that the moment a company goes public, which is to say that it has conducted an IPO, it is no longer a private entity, but an effectively public body, thereby removing the rights and associated protections of being private.

So if a company is owned by a group of owners, that can trade their shares of ownership, it's a government entity?

[Sonny Tufts]

For one thing, any private company that entangles itself with "government" is no longer effectively private. For another, I would say that the moment a company goes public, which is to say that it has conducted an IPO, it is no longer a private entity, but an effectively public body, thereby removing the rights and associated protections of being private.

Not sure what you mean by entanglement. Almost every business has some entanglement with government in the sense that they have to file documents with the government (e.g., income and employment tax returns, property tax returns, sales tax returns, permits, etc.) and comply with governmental requirements (e.g. OSHA regulations) but that shouldn't make them government agents such that they can't exercise editorial discretion.

Universities accept governmental money all the time. If a Christian university accepts research $ from Washington must it permit a Satanist to preach on campus (let's assume no student wants to invite the speaker)?

[CaptUSA]

The US consumer has abdicated his responsibility.

In a functioning market, any private sector company will pay a significant price for mistreating their customers. It's not in the interest of the barber to slice the throat of his patron.

But in a misfunctioning market, the state gets involved and provides protections for companies, helps them hide their misdeeds, uses them to commit more misdeeds, and squelches competitors.

You want functioning markets where this kind of behavior doesn't last long?? End the state's involvement in commerce. Anything short of that, is tilting at windmills.

[Mach]

So if a company is owned by a group of owners, that can trade their shares of ownership, it's a government entity?

He already said, it is then a PUBLIC company, the people that run it, do not own it.

[Madison320]

He already said, it is then a PUBLIC company, the people that run it, do not own it.

Why should a group of business owners lose their property rights when they hire someone to run the business?

[Mach]

Why should a group of business owners lose their property rights when they hire someone to run the business?

Property rights?

A Corporate is a business structure or a legal form of organization. It has a separate legal identity distinct from its owners.

[Madison320]

Property rights?

A Corporate is a business structure or a legal form of organization. It has a separate legal identity distinct from its owners.

The property rights of the owners. The corporation is just a pass thru entity, it's owned by humans.

Reason #23,476 never to own a business in the US.

[osan]

So if a company is owned by a group of owners, that can trade their shares of ownership, it's a government entity?

How do you get that from what I wrote?

If a company takes so much as a penny of taxpayer money for any reason, they should become subject to the various governmental requirements. Of course, those requirements should be reasonable and not lousy with idiocies as we see these days.

So long as a company takes no public funds and is not publicly traded, they should be free to do whatever they want so long as it is not criminal in nature.

It is a simple and elegant solution that forces companies to choose what they want as their daily operational reality.

[osan]

Not sure what you mean by entanglement.

Valid query, given I was not sufficiently clear on the point.

I mean the following:

• Taking public funds for any reason whatsoever
• Entering into any agreement with "government", whether for money, any other consideration, or for free

It doesn't include entanglements that it cannot legally avoid, such as paying taxes.

Almost every business has some entanglement with government in the sense that they have to file documents with the government (e.g., income and employment tax returns, property tax returns, sales tax returns, permits, etc.) and comply with governmental requirements (e.g. OSHA regulations) but that shouldn't make them government agents such that they can't exercise editorial discretion.

All fine and valid points, which I hope I have addressed sufficiently.
o

Universities accept governmental money all the time. If a Christian university accepts research $ from Washington must it permit a Satanist to preach on campus (let's assume no student wants to invite the speaker)?

In a word, yes. The choice of which is more important, one's Christian principles, or getting the cash is what such a school should have to face. Choice is theirs. That they might not like the choice, that they would cry that it's "unfair", is tough poo pellets for them. And if they cannot remain in business without a "government" subsidy, that is also tough pellets. Such funding should not exist, but it does, and so I contend that if you take the "government's" nickel, they get to call the tune. This is not a new idea and it's not rocket surgery. Anyone complaining about it succeeds only in showing to the world that they are corrupt.

Look at it from the satanist's viewpoint: his tax money is used to financially support an establishment that is bigoted again him. It's easy to dismiss because of the "satanist" label. How about we turn that around, giving a satanist university public monies. They would not have to discriminate to see many Christians pitching a hairy tantrum over the fact that such an institution is getting their tax dollars. Consider public funding of abortion clinics. I personally find that particular investment not only immoral, but criminal. Then again, IMO any public funding is criminal, seeing as taxation is robbery, which is a felony.

The best solution is not to publicly fund anything. No interstates? Who says? But even if so, I say "so what?" Destroying the rights of men for the sake of some jackass notion of progress is just about the cheapest, worst reason imaginable. But public funding is a sad fact, so I say make taking the Devil's dime as costly and unpleasant to the taker as possible.

[Matt Collins]

Explained another way:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHLCpO4tfIg

[nobody's_hero]

Valid query, given I was not sufficiently clear on the point.

I mean the following:

• Taking public funds for any reason whatsoever
• Entering into any agreement with "government", whether for money, any other consideration, or for free

It doesn't include entanglements that it cannot legally avoid, such as paying taxes.



All fine and valid points, which I hope I have addressed sufficiently.
o

In a word, yes. The choice of which is more important, one's Christian principles, or getting the cash is what such a school should have to face. Choice is theirs. That they might not like the choice, that they would cry that it's "unfair", is tough poo pellets for them. And if they cannot remain in business without a "government" subsidy, that is also tough pellets. Such funding should not exist, but it does, and so I contend that if you take the "government's" nickel, they get to call the tune. This is not a new idea and it's not rocket surgery. Anyone complaining about it succeeds only in showing to the world that they are corrupt.

Look at it from the satanist's viewpoint: his tax money is used to financially support an establishment that is bigoted again him. It's easy to dismiss because of the "satanist" label. How about we turn that around, giving a satanist university public monies. They would not have to discriminate to see many Christians pitching a hairy tantrum over the fact that such an institution is getting their tax dollars. Consider public funding of abortion clinics. I personally find that particular investment not only immoral, but criminal. Then again, IMO any public funding is criminal, seeing as taxation is robbery, which is a felony.

The best solution is not to publicly fund anything. No interstates? Who says? But even if so, I say "so what?" Destroying the rights of men for the sake of some jackass notion of progress is just about the cheapest, worst reason imaginable. But public funding is a sad fact, so I say make taking the Devil's dime as costly and unpleasant to the taker as possible.

Feel the same way about voting. If you take any form of welfare, you should not be allowed to vote. Fat chance of that ever happening of course.

[Sonny Tufts]

Entering into any agreement with "government", whether for money, any other consideration, or for free

You're painting with too broad a brush. Suppose the university in my example didn't receive a grant, but rather entered into a contract with a government department to provide it with some sort of research and development or other consideration. What about a plumber who is hired by a post office to fix a leak in the facility's restroom. Or a company that sells the government some product that the latter uses. Does the government get to "call the tune" just because it entered into an arm's length agreement for a fair consideration? Are all these vendors turned into government agents?

[acptulsa]

Does the government get to "call the tune" just because it entered into an arm's length agreement for a fair consideration? Are all these vendors turned into government agents?

You wonder why government never does things the efficient way, never seems to take the precautions that prevent the leak or cut paper usage. It's because yes, if they spend enough money on that esoteric stuff, they do get to call the tune.

Sonny Tufts, government sets up regulations, requirements and mandatory hoops to jump through for contractors constantly and with relish. And whatever this game is that you're playing by trying to gaslight us, you damned well know it. It is in no way something new or unheard of.

It's you with a broad brush in your hand, dripping with whitewash.

[Sonny Tufts]

Sonny Tufts, government sets up regulations, requirements and mandatory hoops to jump through for contractors constantly and with relish. And whatever this game is that you're playing by trying to gaslight us, you damned well know it. It is in no way something new or unheard of.

It's you with a broad brush in your hand, dripping with whitewash.

The topic under discussion was whether a private company loses its status as private simply because it enters into a contract with the government, with the result that anything else it does, whether it's related to the contract or not, is done without the protection of being a private company.

Let me give you a different example: a newspaper publishes an ad placed and paid for by the city listing the polling places for an upcoming election. Should the paper lose its status as a private company (along with its editorial discretion), and must it hereafter accept any ad, letter to the editor, or story submitted to it because otherwise it would be engaging in governmental censorship?

[osan]

You're painting with too broad a brush.

I don't think I am. There need to be a few very bright lines in the sand. Not many, but the one's we need, must be very clear or else the weasel-worders will twist and mangle Law such that there may as well be no Law at all.

Suppose the university in my example didn't receive a grant, but rather entered into a contract with a government department to provide it with some sort of research and development or other consideration.

They have taken the devil's dime. Let them live with that choice. By working for "government", you become an extension thereof. It is now well established that "government" cannot discriminate, etc. and so on. If you are an extension (associate) of "government", then you are bound by the same obligations.

This is in no way a difficulty. It is simple, clear, and sufficient. Let "government" and their associates be bound by the same rules.

What about a plumber who is hired by a post office to fix a leak in the facility's restroom.

He can't live without the PO? You seem to be trying to play on pity for the little guy. Carries no water with me. If you make exceptions, everyone will complain that they have been arbitrarily denied the chance... blah blah vomit. You want the benefit, you pay the price. "Government" is invariably rotten because people who have lost their morals are invariably rotten and are on that downward trajectory that invariably leads to very bad things. We have six thousand years of written history that attests to this in stark, non-equivocating prose.

Or a company that sells the government some product that the latter uses. Does the government get to "call the tune" just because it entered into an arm's length agreement for a fair consideration?

I would say that this turns on whether the transactions are the products of explicit contracts. If FBI special agent I. M. A. Dick buys lunch at McDonald's, McDs doesn't become an arm of "government". If they enter into a formal contract to provide the FBI with catered lunches every Friday, you bet your ass they become bound in the relevant ways.

Are all these vendors turned into government agents?

I believe we've hit on a key element: formal relations. There is a fundamental difference between a plumber being informally called on an emergency basis and being formally contracted to provide all such emergency services on an ongoing basis.

Getting in bed with the devil should have a cost that leaves candidates thinking very carefully about whether they really want to do it.

Consider this twist: Company A wants to dance with Satan but doesn't want to have to toe the relevant lines such as non-discrimination, etc. They cobble up Company B, more or less a pass-through entity which enters into contracts with the Eville™. No sure how to deal with that, but my suspicion is that this should be seen as a sham corporation whose purpose is to circumvent the requirements. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, and I'd be raw tempted to toss your ass into prison for it. You may find this too harsh, but I maintain that it is necessary because if you give people the least opportunity to show how rotten they tend to be, far too many will happily unzip and whip out the full monty. I say it is trebly important to be a harsh taskmaster where taxpayer funds are concerned. It's bad enough that those bastards rob us; so much worse that all manner of chicanery goes on with the ill-gotten gains for which many have worked diligently, the "government" pinch often impacting one's quality of life most unpleasantly.

If we do not rein in the rotten humans, whether in "government" or those benefitting from its corruptions, we can expect nothing other than that we have suffered since written forever.

The solutions are actually very simple, but taken as a whole we Americans won't tread that path precisely because just as with the "government", we are rife with corruption, not the least of which is an inadequate capacity to reason properly on such matter, believing that they can have things that in actuality they cannot.

[jmdrake]

Why should a group of business owners lose their property rights when they hire someone to run the business?

Why should a group of business owners be able to create a fictional "person" and give that "person" the rights meant to be given to freed slaves? Here's a primer on corporate personhood.

http://www.14th-amendment.com/Miscel...Personhood.pdf

[osan]

Feel the same way about voting. If you take any form of welfare, you should not be allowed to vote. Fat chance of that ever happening of course.

ut

I'm on board with that as well. Contrary to what the dopey people contend, voting is by no means a natural right, but only synthetic privilege accorded to citizens. I would add "in good standing". If you're in prison, you are not a citizen in good standing. The same may be validly said of the parasite class.

[osan]

Why should a group of business owners be able to create a fictional "person"[?]

Here's where semantic shenanigans come in. Strictly speaking, a "person" is not a human being. "Person" derives from "persona", the mask that stage actors used to use. They had a small megaphone-like protrusion at the mouth, the purpose of which was to help project the voice in an age before electrical amplification. A "persona" as applied to humans in later times was a direct analog of the stage persona. We refer to a man's persona, that which he projects to the outside world. We often refer to the false personas of scoundrels and criminals, adopted for the purposes of deceit. I guess in time, "person" came to connote an individual in the way we humans are wont to dow with words. Just look what the millennials did with "awesome", which gets my bitch-slapper twitching.

So strictly speaking, a corporation is very much a person; a mask; a phony. It is the human being that is not a person.

...and give that "person" the rights meant to be given to freed slaves?

I strongly support certain protections for corporations, while opposing others. I believe certain classes of crimes should nullify certain of the otherwise proper protections the moment a valid prima facie case is made. Right to remain silent and not self-incriminate should go right out the window once the valid case is established for certain sorts of crime. The risks to a prosecutor for making a false case should be severe because the accused could be required to divulge trade secrets, for example. I hold Pfizer and Moderna and their rotten "vaccines" as prime examples of why one must be able to nullify corporate rights under certain circumstances. There seems to be a reasonable case to be made that those corporations were up to nothing good. Were I king, once the case were made, I would strip the corporation and all its employees of their rights to remain silent and not self-incriminate. There would be large punishments for refusing to cooperate with an investigation. I'm thiknking that I would treat such circumstances in ways similar to what I specify in my Amendment 28, with some emphasis on the fact that the queries put to those under investigation would have to be relevant to the alleged crimes in question, or new ones that arise in the course of valid investigation with violations of that rule by investigators being treated sternly. For example, if the company is being investigated for crimes against humanity, questions of the CEO's sexual orientation would be right out unless it can be demonstrated that it somehow bore upon the crimes in a relevant way. If it cannot, yet the question is posed, the CEO being required by Law to answer and do so candidly, the asker should be brought to bitter regret at having erred. One of the points there is to give plenty of incentive to investigators to do their jobs with great care, honesty, integrity, and honor.

[Madison320]

Here's where semantic shenanigans come in. Strictly speaking, a "person" is not a human being. "Person" derives from "persona", the mask that stage actors used to use. They had a small megaphone-like protrusion at the mouth, the purpose of which was to help project the voice in an age before electrical amplification. A "persona" as applied to humans in later times was a direct analog of the stage persona. We refer to a man's persona, that which he projects to the outside world. We often refer to the false personas of scoundrels and criminals, adopted for the purposes of deceit. I guess in time, "person" came to connote an individual in the way we humans are wont to dow with words. Just look what the millennials did with "awesome", which gets my bitch-slapper twitching.

So strictly speaking, a corporation is very much a person; a mask; a phony. It is the human being that is not a person.



I strongly support certain protections for corporations, while opposing others. I believe certain classes of crimes should nullify certain of the otherwise proper protections the moment a valid prima facie case is made. Right to remain silent and not self-incriminate should go right out the window once the valid case is established for certain sorts of crime. The risks to a prosecutor for making a false case should be severe because the accused could be required to divulge trade secrets, for example. I hold Pfizer and Moderna and their rotten "vaccines" as prime examples of why one must be able to nullify corporate rights under certain circumstances. There seems to be a reasonable case to be made that those corporations were up to nothing good. Were I king, once the case were made, I would strip the corporation and all its employees of their rights to remain silent and not self-incriminate. There would be large punishments for refusing to cooperate with an investigation. I'm thiknking that I would treat such circumstances in ways similar to what I specify in my Amendment 28, with some emphasis on the fact that the queries put to those under investigation would have to be relevant to the alleged crimes in question, or new ones that arise in the course of valid investigation with violations of that rule by investigators being treated sternly. For example, if the company is being investigated for crimes against humanity, questions of the CEO's sexual orientation would be right out unless it can be demonstrated that it somehow bore upon the crimes in a relevant way. If it cannot, yet the question is posed, the CEO being required by Law to answer and do so candidly, the asker should be brought to bitter regret at having erred. One of the points there is to give plenty of incentive to investigators to do their jobs with great care, honesty, integrity, and honor.

What's the difference between a corporation and a group of owners?

If the government decides to force a corporation do do business a certain way, who do you think takes the loss? The "corporation" or the owners?

You think Biden had the authority to force corporations to mandate covid vaccinations?

Should the government reimburse corporations when it forces something that cause the business to lose money?

[Brian4Liberty]

I believe for the purpose of the OP article, it was a binary distinction, government or private (non-government).

As far as debate about technicalities, government, government contractor, government partner, NGO, multi-national body, private business, corporation, partnership, LLC, mafia king, tribal leader, it’s just an exercise in naming your oppressor...

[osan]

What's the difference between a corporation and a group of owners?

A corporation is a legal fiction, a "person" that insofar as statutory "law" is concerned is an extant entity that is treated as a monobloc entity
but is in fact only a mask, a fiction, a fake we regard with a wink-wink nudge-nudge for the sake of streamlining "issues" that otherwise arise and make proceeding along certain lines of action difficult. A corporation also provides certain protections to those who are shareholders and/or employees of the corporation, so when your widget removes Janey Doe's private parts in a malfunction, the humans who work with, for, or who own the corporation may enjoy certain protections such as not losing their houses, all else equal.

A group of owners enjoy no such limited liability protections under equal circumstances, and may find that issues such as transfer of ownership may manifest those "issues" to which I refer just above.

If the government decides to force a corporation do do business a certain way, who do you think takes the loss? The "corporation" or the owners?

The question presupposes the loss, an assumption that rings hollow. But if we assume there is a "loss", the sort of which you neglected to define, it is impossible to tell in a general manner, prima facie. But in theory, I can imagine there may be some results that effect the corporation, yet not harm the shareholders. For speculative example, imagine that in entering into a formal contract with "government", they are no longer allowed to discriminate against some subpopulation. Name your favorite professional victim group. This may well effect corporate operations to a greater or lesser degree, but it might not cause shareholders to suffer an profit hit whatsoever, though on the other hand it might, depending on the business and the market they serve. On the other other hand, it is not beyond conceivable that the bottom line might even improve by enlarging their potential customer base.

You think Biden had the authority to force corporations to mandate covid vaccinations?

Major non sequitur. Biden has no authority to order anyone to take a vaccine, so the example fails catastrophically, prima facie.

Should the government reimburse corporations when it forces something that cause the business to lose money?

Again the question presupposes an undemonstrated problem. Nonetheless, if again we use non-discrimination as the issue, if entering into a government contract would lead to losses, one would then have to do the loss/benefit analysis to determine whether the new restrictions would lead to net gains or losses and then choose in accord with those results either to move forward, or pass.

And let me make clear a point you appear to have missed: dancing with the devil would put you under the exact same restrictions that bind the devil himself in terms of what he may do, must do, and must not do. No discrimination, for example; no calling black people knygger, Jews kike, Italians wop; no feeling your female coworker's most bodacious knobs in the elevator, or anywhere else for that matter without her permission, and so on down the long list of behavioral requirements. There are no dicta to be obeyed that lie outside of those requirements or the stipulations found in the contract between the parties, so your questions stand on thin ice on that point as well.

[Madison320]

A corporation is a legal fiction, a "person" that insofar as statutory "law" is concerned is an extant entity that is treated as a monobloc entity
but is in fact only a mask, a fiction, a fake we regard with a wink-wink nudge-nudge for the sake of streamlining "issues" that otherwise arise and make proceeding along certain lines of action difficult. A corporation also provides certain protections to those who are shareholders and/or employees of the corporation, so when your widget removes Janey Doe's private parts in a malfunction, the humans who work with, for, or who own the corporation may enjoy certain protections such as not losing their houses, all else equal.

A group of owners enjoy no such limited liability protections under equal circumstances, and may find that issues such as transfer of ownership may manifest those "issues" to which I refer just above.

Are you against personal bankruptcy laws and LLCs? That would seem to be similar to the limited liability that corporations enjoy.

Is there a way to fix it so that a group of owners can trade shares of ownership and still retain their property rights?

[jmdrake]

Are you against personal bankruptcy laws and LLCs? That would seem to be similar to the limited liability that corporations enjoy.

Is there a way to fix it so that a group of owners can trade shares of ownership and still retain their property rights?

Treat corporations the way the were before the 14th amendment was misinterpreted?

[Madison320]

Treat corporations the way the were before the 14th amendment was misinterpreted?

Can you explain that and also answer the questions about personal bankruptcy and LLCs?

[jmdrake]

Can you explain that and also answer the questions about personal bankruptcy and LLCs?

Did you read this link I gave you earlier? http://www.14th-amendment.com/Miscel...Personhood.pdf

That explains how corporations were seen prior to corporate person hood. U.S. corporations themselves didn't have "rights." They were chartered by the states and those same states could revoke said charter for whatever reason. Then overtime the corporations gained more and more power such that the states could not regulate them, but of course the Federal government could. So the rise of the almighty federal government, and the rise of the almighty corporations happened simultaneously with almost nobody noticing. Republicans tend to support corporate power. Democrats tend to support Federal government power. The little guy gets the shaft.

I don't understand your question about personal bankruptcy. Do I think it should be allowed? Of course. It's in the Bible. What I don't understand is what that has to do with corporations.

My stance on LLCs? I live in the current world and in a world were corporations exist people certainly have a right to form corporations. In my fantasy world guns wouldn't be a think and wars would still be fought with swords and bows and arrows. But that's not realistic. If the state went away there would still be gunpowder. It the state went away there would not still be corporations because corporations are, by definition, a creation of the state.

What does an LLC do for someone with regards to bankruptcy? Well an LLC can go bankrupt and even if it is owned by a single individual, that person's own credit score isn't affected by the bankruptcy. So Joe and Bill both start their own plumbing business. Both go belly up but Bill paid the $400 to form an LLC so not only does he get bankruptcy protection, as does Joe, but it's for the LLC which he can just dissolve if necessary. Is society really that better off because Bill is seen as a better credit risk just for filing a $400 fee on the front end? I dunno. What do you think?

[Madison320]

I don't understand your question about personal bankruptcy. Do I think it should be allowed? Of course. It's in the Bible. What I don't understand is what that has to do with corporations.

My stance on LLCs? I live in the current world and in a world were corporations exist people certainly have a right to form corporations. In my fantasy world guns wouldn't be a think and wars would still be fought with swords and bows and arrows. But that's not realistic. If the state went away there would still be gunpowder. It the state went away there would not still be corporations because corporations are, by definition, a creation of the state.

What does an LLC do for someone with regards to bankruptcy? Well an LLC can go bankrupt and even if it is owned by a single individual, that person's own credit score isn't affected by the bankruptcy. So Joe and Bill both start their own plumbing business. Both go belly up but Bill paid the $400 to form an LLC so not only does he get bankruptcy protection, as does Joe, but it's for the LLC which he can just dissolve if necessary. Is society really that better off because Bill is seen as a better credit risk just for filing a $400 fee on the front end? I dunno. What do you think?

I'd like to focus on personal bankruptcy and LLCs because I think the logic is similar to big corporations. I haven't really thought this thru all the way but the idea that the government can initiate force on a business doesn't seem right to me.

So my question is, Should the government be permitted to initiate force on Bill's business but not on Joe's? In exchange for Bill's lesser liability?

Suppose Bill invests his life savings of a million dollars into his LLC plumbing business. Then the government forces Bill to service customers who have bad credit and his business goes under so he loses a million dollars. That doesn't seem right to me but I'm still working it out.

Here's one thought. When you trade freely with other people there's no need for government interference until there's a disagreement. I'm not an anarchist and I believe this is a proper role of government. So once there's a disagreement there's no "pure, non-force" way to resolve the dispute. So I'm thinking that bankruptcy laws and LLCs are all part of the dispute resolution process that government created.

LLCs and even bankruptcy laws bother me in a way because they seem contrived by government. But the idea that government can basically steal a business owner's property also bothers me.

[jmdrake]

I'd like to focus on personal bankruptcy and LLCs because I think the logic is similar to big corporations. I haven't really thought this thru all the way but the idea that the government can initiate force on a business doesn't seem right to me.

So my question is, Should the government be permitted to initiate force on Bill's business but not on Joe's? In exchange for Bill's lesser liability?

Why are you okay with the government initiating force on Bill's creditors in a way that it does not initiate force on Joe's? Joe's creditors can say through the credit rating agencies "Don't lend money to Joe because he's a bad credit risk" but Bill's creditors are not allowed to do that because of a government initiation of force against them.

And in the context of this thread, the government got it bed with Bill, told Bill which customers to discriminate against (YouTube, Twitter and Facebook deplatforming people at the request of government agents such as Dr. Anthony Fauci), and then Bill wants to cry when others use government to push back? Really?

Suppose Bill invests his life savings of a million dollars into his LLC plumbing business. Then the government forces Bill to service customers who have bad credit and his business goes under so he loses a million dollars. That doesn't seem right to me but I'm still working it out.

Except....that doesn't happen. What does happen is where a railroad corporation talks the government into doing a "controlled release" of toxic chemicals poisoning an entire town and then offers the townspeople $5 a piece in compensation. That just happened in Ohio. To white people. I emphasize race in this instance simply to point out that the corporatist state is an equal opportunity abuser of the little guy. For every hypothetical you can come up with about the "poor corporations" there are a zillion actual examples of corporate fascists screwing over everyone else. But let's go with your hypothetical anyway. Bill doesn't have to form an LLC! It's just Bill. If Bill thinks that the regulations that come with being a corporation are too onerous, Bill doesn't have to incorporate. He's worried about getting sued for bad plumbing work? He can buy insurance to cover that. He's worried about getting in over his head in debt? He can live within his means. Much of the "benefit" a sole proprietor gets from being a corporation (LLC or S-Corp) could either be dealt with using good business practices and/or scrapping the current tax system for something that's truly fair. I should be having to think about which business structure lets me have the most deductions or pay myself in a way to avoid self employment taxes because that shouldn't be a thing.

Here's one thought. When you trade freely with other people there's no need for government interference until there's a disagreement. I'm not an anarchist and I believe this is a proper role of government. So once there's a disagreement there's no "pure, non-force" way to resolve the dispute. So I'm thinking that bankruptcy laws and LLCs are all part of the dispute resolution process that government created.

Bankruptcy laws existed all the way back to the time of Moses. LLCs did not exist until 1977. The Federal Income Tax is older than the LLC. And no. Government didn't create bankruptcy laws. God did. And if you don't believe in God, "natural law" did. It's obvious that at some point it makes more sense to write off debt. I wrote off debt to a friend of mine in high school that continually borrowed money from me without ever paying me back and I eventually quit loaning him money. Call that allowing him to file bankruptcy and personally giving him a bad credit score. If someone asked if he was worth the risk of lending him money I would have told that person "absolutely not." No government needed. On the other hand for him to have a special piece of paper that said I couldn't tell other people that he had borrowed money from me and not paid me back because he hadn't actually borrowed the money but he had only acted as an agent for that special piece of paper requires either government or collective insanity or both. Same holds true if he and a group of his friends were all the owners of the special piece of paper whether he asked me for the money for the paper or his friends all asked collectively for the money.

LLCs and even bankruptcy laws bother me in a way because they seem contrived by government. But the idea that government can basically steal a business owner's property also bothers me.

So you have NEVER in your life loaned money to someone and decided at some point to quit asking for it back? If so you are a blessed man. But I'm sure you know someone that has done that even if they were too embarrassed to tell you about it.

[osan]

Are you against personal bankruptcy laws and LLCs?

What has bankruptcy to do with the topic at hand? No I have no problem with such laws. Sometimes business deals go south and people get into trouble, often through no fault of their own. Feces happen at times, and there should be ways of settling the various problems that arise when criminal chicanery is not evident. Using bankruptcy to evade obligations you had no intentions of meeting from the get-go... that's a whole different kettle of fish. Administering a bankruptcy requires some serious capacities due to the tricky nature of the event, not to mention the rotten nature of some people.

LLCs are effectively no different from C-corps or sub-S corps, save in the ways taxes are managed.

That would seem to be similar to the limited liability that corporations enjoy.

What is similar?

Is there a way to fix it so that a group of owners can trade shares of ownership and still retain their property rights?

Sorry, you have lost me. What it is we are fixing?