Thank you also. I think I have adequately stated the reasons for my views, which are firmly based on Objectivist principles. Anyone who reads through our entire exchange should acquire a good understanding of both of our positions.

Though I appreciate your passion in the prosecution of this case, I find it unpersuasive on either front. On the merits, there is no pragmatic case against corporations whatsoever. From a moral argument, there was no evidence 1) that there is undue influence in the process of incorporation, 2) that the terms are arbitrary (based on applicant), or 3) that there is any difference in the way the defendant is treated at trial which would constitute a moral crisis.

Thanks for a most cordial and engaging debate.

There is justification in using retaliatory force, but not a right. They are very different things.

If a person’s actions are justified, he is necessarily acting within his rights.

rights are never dependent on someone else's actions. Rights are individual and exist even if another person isn't around. Retaliatory force pre-supposes another party's actions.

“A ‘right’ is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.” --Ayn Rand, “Man’s Rights”, The Virtue of Selfishness. The manner in which a right may be properly exercised can depend upon someone else’s actions.

Your major complaint in this whole debate is that people who incorporate are able to shelter assets from attachment in a lawsuit - they limit their liability.

Wrong. My major complaint, which I have maintained throughout this whole discussion, is that people who bow to the government’s bidding by filing incorporation papers are given enhanced legal protection that is not given to those who choose not to incorporate. It is the double standard that I object to. If the government applies the same standards of asset protection to unincorporated businesses that it does to incorporated businesses, my objection on this issue no longer applies.

Either Rand is wrong in that quote or her thoughts are being misinterpreted because she used poor word selection.

“That quote” from Ayn Rand’s essay, The Nature of Government, is at the very heart of Rand’s definition of, and justification for, government. Remove it and her advocacy of limited government no longer makes sense.

Despite your minor grammatical error (omitting the negative) and personal aspersion toward me, even the other Objectivists on this forum have disagreed with your interpretation regarding corporations. There aren't "millions upon millions of people" agreeing with you.

There was no grammatical error in my statement, minor or otherwise. Nor was any personal aspersion intended. I meant exactly what I said. Read it again: ”You may find Objectivism practical in terms of advancing human political and economic liberty, but millions upon millions of other people hold the opposite view. You're outvoted on both counts.”

I was simply mirroring the form and structure of your statement, to demonstrate that the argument was invalid – the rightness or wrongness of what one finds “practical” does not depend upon the number of people who hold the opposite position. (I assume that we both find Objectivism practical in terms of advancing human political and economic liberty.)

If an arbiter has no real authority to enforce the terms of a contract, what good are they? Wouldn't you just have to re-litigate the dispute in Court? What you're really saying is that there are no real third-party arbiters at all - which was my point. The only real arbiters are those who have been granted power to act on behalf of the State.

That’s not what I’m really saying at all. Governments (physically) enforce contracts. An arbitration agreement is a contract. Private arbiters are contracted by two or more opposing sides to decide in favor of one or the other. If the losing party refuses to abide by the decision of the arbitrator, the original dispute would not have to be relitigated in court – the court would simply be asked to uphold the terms of the arbitration contract itself.

"A right to the use of retaliatory force is a component of the right to self-defense."

Uh, no. There is justification in using retaliatory force, but not a right. They are very different things. Government doesn't have a "right" to retaliatory force. That's why cases must go to adjudication before law enforcement may be justly empowered to act and confiscate property, etc. If there is a "right" to retaliatory force, you obviate the entire reason for a judicial branch of government. The Executive would be empowered to act without check based entirely on its own perception of an incident.

Shooting someone in self-defense isn't a right, it's justified action. Why? Because rights are never dependent on someone else's actions. Rights are individual and exist even if another person isn't around. Retaliatory force pre-supposes another party's actions.

"Of course you’re not, because I never made..."

You missed the point. Your major complaint in this whole debate is that people who incorporate are able to shelter assets from attachment in a lawsuit - they limit their liability. You don't like it that those assets are taken off the table even though they are no longer that individual's personal assets. You want them available (unrestricted) for inclusion in the damages pool. My point is that damage awards are not unlimited. You don't get to demand someone else's life just because they initiated an automobile accident. That's vindictiveness, not compensation for loss. That's tyranny through other means.

"Lastly, government doesn't have "rights" delegated to it." (my words with which you disagreed)

I stand by what I said. Government has powers delegated to it - not rights. Rights are individual and can not be delegated away. Either Rand is wrong in that quote or her thoughts are being misinterpreted because she used poor word selection. I take the word "rights" very seriously and definitively.

Another way to think of it is this: Government is just as ephemeral an entity as a corporation. If a corporation can not hold rights, under what theory is a government any different? In fact, isn't a government just another form of corporation - just one that is far more expansive in application and jurisdiction?

"You may [not] find Objectivism practical in terms of advancing human political and economic liberty, but millions upon millions of other people hold the opposite view."

Despite your minor grammatical error (omitting the negative) and personal aspersion toward me, even the other Objectivists on this forum have disagreed with your interpretation regarding corporations. There aren't "millions upon millions of people" agreeing with you. Even if that were the case, you have yet to show how corporations infringe upon either political or economic liberty - especially the latter. The Oxford History of the United States credits much of the explosion in entrepreneurship and industry in the United States in the late 1800's to the advent of widespread incorporation. I'm also not sure how political liberty is damaged by the invention of corporations either. Most counties, cities, etc. are corporations...

"Unlike government, no private arbiters can use actual force to enforce a ruling. They must turn to government to do so."

If an arbiter has no real authority to enforce the terms of a contract, what good are they? Wouldn't you just have to re-litigate the dispute in Court? What you're really saying is that there are no real third-party arbiters at all - which was my point. The only real arbiters are those who have been granted power to act on behalf of the State.

There is no "right" to retaliatory force.

A right to the use of retaliatory force is a component of the right to self-defense.

A "right" to retaliatory force would imply that no judgment other than one's own would be sufficient to initiate retaliatory force. Justification properly notes that judgment relies on an impartial third party.

The right to retaliatory force implies no such thing. Aside from force necessary for immediate self-defense, the right to retaliatory force is a right delegated to a proper government. I said as much in my comments above: “a monopoly on the retaliatory use of force . . . is a defining feature of a proper government according to Objectivism.” The government itself is supposed to be that impartial third party. It abandons that impartiality when it agrees to put its thumb on the scales of justice in exchange for the filing of corporation papers.

Furthermore, I'm also not seeing what grants one unlimited retaliatory force against another person.

Of course you’re not, because I never made or implied such a claim. As I said previously, the right to retaliatory force is a right delegated to government. No government of a semi-free country that I am aware of claims the right to use unlimited retaliatory force against any person.

Lastly, government doesn't have "rights" delegated to it.

“government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.” –Ayn Rand, The Nature of Government

You may find them (corporations) impractical, but millions upon millions of other people hold the opposite view. You're outvoted on both counts.

You may find Objectivism practical in terms of advancing human political and economic liberty, but millions upon millions of other people hold the opposite view. You're outvoted on both counts.

any authorized arbiter is in fact a legitimate governing entity because it has the authority to enforce a ruling.

Unlike government, no private arbiters can use actual force to enforce a ruling. They must turn to government to do so.

I think you're mincing words and trying to avoid what a government really is and how it works because such understanding nullifies any real distinction between public and private arbiters.

The real distinction is that, unlike private arbiters, government has the authority to enforce its rulings by the use of physical force. Arbiters don’t. Big difference.

I certainly never implied that incorporation creates "rights" or "personhood" for the corporate entity. I find such a notion prima faciae absurd: a corporation is not a person. It has no sentience in and of itself and therefore can not be recognized as holding rights.

I’m so happy to see that you agree with me. Now see if you can convince the U.S. Supreme Court. From its 1886 decision in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company to its 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court has consistently held that a corporation is a legal person with a considerable array of the Constitutional rights of real people.

Firms such as sole proprietorships and partnerships face this possibility all the time. Two responses I can think of, just off the top of my head:

1) Liability insurance.
2) Clear language on the product label or sale contract, spelling out the limits of the selling company's liability.

There are likely many other solutions I haven’t thought of, that can be implemented without violating free-market principles.

".. to the extent that owners of corporations are legally protected from personal liability, the exact same legal protection should also apply to owners of an unincorporated firm."

This is a fair comment, but how to do it?

Imagine individuals who trade as a group, not incorporated. They sell a product. The product destroys value of a $1m. There is a court case, the court rules for $1m damages to be paid by the group.
The group may (truthfully) say they have together only $100k for this. Too bad, the court can go for homes, cars etc.

Now, they want the right stated above to limit their payment, too late, they could have incorporated. Members of the group had that choice. They chose not to set up a separate legal entity (person).

Buyers of the product also have the choice of who they buy from, they would/should know about limited recourse when dealing with a corporate v. no limit for non-corporates.

"Wars, dictatorships and superstition have also existed for centuries..."

Red herring. Stay on topic.

"Incorporation interferes with the right of retaliatory force, which in Objectivist terms is a right delegated to government."

Uh, since corporations are registered with the government and deal with the government's arbitration of claims, I'm not seeing a violation here. There is no "right" to retaliatory force. There may be justification but that is not the same thing. Rights are individual. A "right" to retaliatory force would imply that no judgment other than one's own would be sufficient to initiate retaliatory force. Justification properly notes that judgment relies on an impartial third party.

Furthermore, I'm also not seeing what grants one unlimited retaliatory force against another person. Your claim implies such, yet we don't execute people for vandalism nor do we confiscate one's home for petty theft. Punishment must have parity with the crime or the infliction of retaliatory force becomes tyranny in and of itself rather than justice. (I also cover this in my book.)

Lastly, government doesn't have "rights" delegated to it. Government has specific powers delegated to it in order to protect rights, etc.

"Corporations are not pragmatic (practical) in terms of advancing human political and economic liberty, for reasons I stated above.."

You may find them impractical, but millions upon millions of other people hold the opposite view. You're outvoted on both counts.

"The interference consists of increasing the expense and difficulty of exercising that right against those who initiate force and then hide behind corporations to escape the consequences of their wrongful actions or negligence."

That you consider it to be "expensive" or "difficult" is a personal assessment based on your specific biases, cost-benefit analysis, etc. It is not a moral value argument, however. Neither you nor I is an authorized spokesperson for Reality. Nor have you substantiated the second claim to be the modus operandi of the courts. (And really, you'd have to get deep into the guts of any particular case to try to re-evaluate those merits and compare them to the ruling. Knock yourself out.)

"The transfer of property as the result of a lawsuit is a use of retaliatory force, properly executed by a legitimate government."

Therefore, you admit that any authorized arbiter is in fact a legitimate governing entity because it has the authority to enforce a ruling. Again, I think you're mincing words and trying to avoid what a government really is and how it works because such understanding nullifies any real distinction between public and private arbiters.

"Creating corporations out of thin air and endowing them with “personhood” and “rights” does not meet Objectivist standards for proper government action."

I certainly never implied that incorporation creates "rights" or "personhood" for the corporate entity. I find such a notion prima faciae absurd: a corporation is not a person. It has no sentience in and of itself and therefore can not be recognized as holding rights.

Investments do not have to be through direct ownership. For instance, they can be royalty or profit-sharing agreements. If corporations had never existed, these and many other free-market arrangements would have arisen to satisfy investment demand for limited liability. And I have never argued that any form of limited liability is flat-out wrong. All I am saying is that, to the extent that owners of corporations are legally protected from personal liability, the exact same legal protection should also apply to owners of an unincorporated firm.

Wow. Interesting conversation. My two cents is the best part about corporation creation is people can invest in its stocks and bonds without liability past the value of such stocks and bonds. For example, my IRAs and other investment portfolios are a mix of stocks and bonds not always chosen by me. If the financial institution that holds one of my IRAs happens to invest in XYZ company and some fool at XYZ gets sued for doing something really stupid within the company, the worst that can happen to me is XYZ stocks and bonds go to zero value. No lawyer or team of lawyers are going to confiscate the other retirement holdings or my house or my car or put me in "debtors prison" for the rest of my life. Who would invest in the market if that were not so? I'd have to find someplace else to put my money and so would millions of other people. Take that protection away and the whole thing will collapse.

Your objection is ostensibly a moral one - that it should or should not. Pragmatic refers to can or can not. The fact that corporations do and have existed for centuries is a testament to their pragmatism.

Wars, dictatorships and superstition have also existed for centuries. Are they pragmatic? As Ayn Rand points out, “The evaluation of an action as practical depends on what one intends to practice.” Corporations are not pragmatic (practical) in terms of advancing human political and economic liberty, for reasons I stated above..

Tell me which right incorporation ostensibly interferes with or concede the point - and the entire argument.

Incorporation interferes with the right of retaliatory force, which in Objectivist terms is a right delegated to government. The interference consists of increasing the expense and difficulty of exercising that right against those who initiate force and then hide behind corporations to escape the consequences of their wrongful actions or negligence.

Who selects this third-party arbiter and grants them power? And what list of powers do you grant them? Are they not the very same powers we grant to the entity we call "government?" YES. Even the Rand quote you gave concedes that legal avenues are a legitimate grant of authority to government. And is not the transfer of property as the result of a lawsuit a use of force? Of course it is! Good grief.

Arbiters have whatever powers the parties to arbitration grant them, no more and no less. They do not have a monopoly on the retaliatory use of force, which is a defining feature of a proper government according to Objectivism. The transfer of property as the result of a lawsuit is a use of retaliatory force, properly executed by a legitimate government.

You made the assertion that people can NOT delegate to government any powers other than those directly dealing with rights. It's not a negative argument. It's simply an untenable one.

Ayn Rand made essentially the same argument, as I stated above. “The government should be concerned only with those issues which involve the use of force. This means: the police, the armed services, and the law courts to settle disputes among men. Nothing else.” Creating corporations out of thin air and endowing them with “personhood” and “rights” does not meet Objectivist standards for proper government action.

"it’s not “pragmatic” in any way, shape or form..."

Your objection is ostensibly a moral one - that it should or should not. Pragmatic refers to can or can not. The fact that corporations do and have existed for centuries is a testament to their pragmatism.

“The nonaggression principle declares that governments should not interfere with anyone’s peaceful activities, provided those activities do not violate the rights of others..."

You're getting to the point of blah, blah, blah monotony. Restating something ad nauseum does not lend any moral authority to its argument - it just becomes tedious and repetitive. Tell me which right incorporation ostensibly interferes with or concede the point - and the entire argument.

"Neither traffic laws nor zoning laws fall under the umbrella of government’s legitimate functions."

Uh, let me propose a simple thought experiment. If you create an arbiter - let's say a third party, private arbiter - that is generally accepted as authoritative and binding on society, what makes that in any practical terms different than "government?"

Who selects this third-party arbiter and grants them power? And what list of powers do you grant them? Are they not the very same powers we grant to the entity we call "government?" YES. Even the Rand quote you gave concedes that legal avenues are a legitimate grant of authority to government. And is not the transfer of property as the result of a lawsuit a use of force? Of course it is! Good grief.

"I don’t have to prove a negative."

You made the assertion that people can NOT delegate to government any powers other than those directly dealing with rights. It's not a negative argument. It's simply an untenable one.

You've made not just one but a whole series of windmills to tilt against. Unlike Sancho, however, I'm done watching and trying to persuade you of the futility and absurdity of your pursuit. Believe what you will. But without an actual moral claim of substance to discuss, I'm going to bid you adieu.

Incorporation is eminently pragmatic as I have demonstrated.

it’s not “pragmatic” in any way, shape or form. It purchases heightened protection from redress for what are often legitimate claims of damage to other parties, in exchange for increased government interference in a firm’s activities.

If you wish to challenge it on a moral basis, please enumerate the principle you feel is being violated and why.

I have already done so, repeatedly. To once again quote the article I cited:

“The nonaggression principle declares that governments should not interfere with anyone’s peaceful activities, provided those activities do not violate the rights of others. For libertarians, this principle applies not only to individuals, but also to groups of individuals — and a corporation, at its root, is simply a group of individuals who share an interlocking set of contractual relationships.

“The nonaggression principle logically leads to this conclusion: any activities that are legally and morally legitimate for corporations should be equally legitimate for all other private, voluntary groups of people. Conversely, activities that violate the rights of others should be prohibited to all such groups. When it comes to legal rights and responsibilities, a free society should not treat corporations any differently from the way it treats any other privately organized groups, such as labor unions, religious and charitable organizations, foundations, and political parties.

“This leads to a further conclusion that some will consider radical: there is no need or justification for ‘corporation’ as a legal concept at all. An unincorporated business should have exactly the same standing under the law as an incorporated business in matters such as taxation, liability, reporting requirements, and recognition of contracts. Aside from protecting the rights of third parties, governments should have no say regarding any firm’s form of organization, purpose, or method of operation.”

According your logic here, States wouldn't have the moral authority to define traffic laws. Cities wouldn't have the moral authority to enact zoning ordinances.

Correct on both counts. As Ayn Rand has stated: “My position is fully consistent. Not only the post office, but streets, roads, and above all, schools, should all be privately owned and privately run. I advocate the separation of state and economics. The government should be concerned only with those issues which involve the use of force. This means: the police, the armed services, and the law courts to settle disputes among men. Nothing else. Everything else should be privately run and would be much better run.”

Neither traffic laws nor zoning laws fall under the umbrella of government’s legitimate functions. If the streets were privately owned, traffic rules would be set and enforced by the owners. Private deed restrictions are a legitimate substitute for zoning, and are widely used in cities like Houston that have no zoning restrictions.

As definitive as you want to make your case here, you have to prove that the people themselves do not have the right to delegate powers to government for the orderly regulation of society beyond protection of natural rights. That's likely an entire doctoral thesis right there. I look forward to its presentation.

I don’t have to prove a negative. Ayn Rand’s highlighted statement above sums up the Objectivist position on the subject. If you wish to argue the opposite position, it is your responsibility to demonstrate that it is consistent with Objectivism. I look forward to receipt of my PhD.

“Beneficial to business” does not equate to “appropriate in a free market economy”.

Appropriateness is used to indicate either moral sanction or pragmatic outcome. Incorporation is eminently pragmatic as I have demonstrated. If you wish to challenge it on a moral basis, please enumerate the principle you feel is being violated and why. But it must be an actual principle of individual rights rather than a personal preference among alternatives.

"Government exists to protect individual rights. Separation of personal assets from business interests is not a right. Therefore, it is not a proper function of government to create a corporate system that legally separates personal assets from business interests. QED."

The problem with your logic here is in the very first statement because you take that to mean that the ONLY (an absolute) sanctioned activities of government lie directly in protecting individual rights. According your logic here, States wouldn't have the moral authority to define traffic laws. Cities wouldn't have the moral authority to enact zoning ordinances. As definitive as you want to make your case here, you have to prove that the people themselves do not have the right to delegate powers to government for the orderly regulation of society beyond protection of natural rights. That's likely an entire doctoral thesis right there. I look forward to its presentation.

"I have already done so..."

So far you've tried unfairness which was rebutted as unsubstantiated. "Preferential treatment" was exposed as personal preference on the part of the buyer. An argument on the merits of a pragmatic approach was at best a draw. Now you appeal to the limitations of government. It's a fascinating "Hail Mary" but you might want to get some receivers downfield before you throw that one up for grabs. What I have not seen and which would bolster your case substantially is the moral imperitave you feel incorporation violates. Without that, however, your argument is significantly lacking in its merits.

I've laid out the arguments for why it is beneficial to business.

“Beneficial to business” does not equate to “appropriate in a free market economy”. The use of eminent domain to force people from their homes and give their property to corporations can be construed as “beneficial to business”, but it is not a policy that any objectivist would support. Whether corporate privilege is allowable under the Constitution is immaterial – we’re talking principles here, not whatever happens to be legal at the moment.

If you would like to offer up your opinions on why it is not a "proper" service, please do so.

I’ve already done so, many times over. Creating a corporate entity and endowing it with personal “rights” is not a legitimate function of government, in the context of Objectivist principles.

"Either separation of personal assets from business interests is a right, or it isn’t." It isn't.

All right then. Let’s follow this path to its logical conclusion. Government exists to protect individual rights. Separation of personal assets from business interests is not a right. Therefore, it is not a proper function of government to create a corporate system that legally separates personal assets from business interests. QED.

Registering infants at birth is another matter entirely. It is recognition of an actual entity, a new person (usually a citizen) with human rights. This has nothing in common with government creation of an artificial “person” such as a corporation.

Incorporation is the process of creating that legal entity which is separate and apart from the individuals who may oversee its operations. This greatly facilitates the sale and transfer of control of such entities (even within a corporation) without the interference of government (barring monopoly or strategic interests) precisely because those assets are not the private assets of any given individual.

The conveniences that the corporate system “facilitates” are irrelevant to a discussion of basic principles. Pragmatic arguments such as this can be used to justify all kinds of policies that are “good for business” but violate free-market norms, such as the eminent domain example above, and local tax advantages for new businesses that are subsidized by existing businesses.

Does the government have a responsibility to protect property and property rights? Absolutely. And executing that responsibility relies wholly on the government's ability to properly ascertain who owns what so as to be able to adjudicate claims of wrongdoing.

Which government can easily do without resorting to creation of an artificial “person” endowed with its own “rights”. There are many other ways available to investors to shield their personal assets from their investment interests, such as royalty and profit-sharing arrangements, or obtaining liability insurance.

Then demonstrate that there actually exists a double standard here in the US.

I have already done so, and we have unfortunately arrived at what the article points out as the end result: “an economic landscape dominated by corporate executives and their regulators, at the expense of everyone else’s freedom.”

"One is paying for enhanced legal protection against individuals one may have wronged."

Protection that is available to all at the same price. The only argument you are making here is one of personal preference regarding what you are willing to pay to obtain the service. I have not seen a justified argument which alleges that the offering is unfair in any way.

"Which says nothing about whether it is a proper “service” for a legitimate government to offer."

Granted. I've laid out the arguments for why it is beneficial to business. It isn't being offered by the Federal Government so it doesn't run afoul of either the Ninth or Tenth Amendment. The offering isn't prejudicial or favoritistic so far as I can determine. If you would like to offer up your opinions on why it is not a "proper" service, please do so.

"Either separation of personal assets from business interests is a right, or it isn’t."

It isn't. And I'm not sure where the notion came from that it should be. When one creates a corporation, they are creating a legal entity - under the control of specified individuals - which may then take ownership of property. I'm not really sure why this is so controversial. We register infants at birth to recognize their existence and their rights to own property, etc. (Note that we recognize those rights, not grant them.)

Again it boils down to the choice of arbiter: arbitration happens according to the terms of the third-party arbiter rather than those of the contractual parties. That's what's being set when one incorporates: which legal entities may be involved and as a result which assets of those legal entities may be subject to attachment, lien, or other judgement.

Incorporation is the process of creating that legal entity which is separate and apart from the individuals who may oversee its operations. This greatly facilitates the sale and transfer of control of such entities (even within a corporation) without the interference of government (barring monopoly or strategic interests) precisely because those assets are not the private assets of any given individual. (It also means that any internal change of control doesn't result in a tax assessment to the individual. Can you imagine how disastrously messy that would get?)

Does the government have a responsibility to protect property and property rights? Absolutely. And executing that responsibility relies wholly on the government's ability to properly ascertain who owns what so as to be able to adjudicate claims of wrongdoing.

"My contention is that allowing corporate double standards into the free-market tent has undercut the validity of our defense of the free market..."

Then demonstrate that there actually exists a double standard here in the US. (I noted that if one is referring to Japan or China that I accept that those two nations - among others - have created a preferential environment for business.) Without that, the entire rest of your premise falls.

My hat is off to you as a worthy debater!

As are you.

When one incorporates, one is paying for a legal service.

One is paying for enhanced legal protection against individuals one may have wronged.

That service is a fixed cost and provides fixed benefits and is generally applicable.

Which says nothing about whether it is a proper “service” for a legitimate government to offer.

But a complaint that one should be able to take advantage of such without doing what is necessary to qualify is just like arguing that illegals should be treated just like citizens even though they fail to go through the proper immigration procedures. It's an inherently contradictory argument prima faciae.

No it isn’t. Protection of the rights of its citizens is the defining responsibility of government. That’s what governments do, it’s the reason for their existence. This protection is properly extended to those that the government, acting as an agent of and on behalf of its citizens, willingly allows within its borders. Qualifying for enhanced legal protection of certain rights is a whole different kettle of fish. Governments exist solely to protect individual rights. Either separation of personal assets from business interests is a right, or it isn’t. If it is (and that case can definitely be made), it must apply to (and be paid for by) all citizens - currently most people pay for this service through various taxes. If it isn’t, such enhanced protection should not be made available at all. Paying the government extra for the “privilege” of exercising a “right” is inherently contradictory. It’s a double standard.

You can structure an unincorporated business about any way you want, sure. What's your point? I've sat on the Board of Directors of an LLC . . . It cost us about two hours every year. Yawn.

I’ve been through the process also. The amount of inconvenience involved in incorporating is immaterial. We are discussing the application of free-market principles here, not the degree of inconvenience demanded by the government for the “privilege” of incorporation. My contention is that allowing corporate double standards into the free-market tent has undercut the validity of our defense of the free market, and allowed our opponents to capitalize on our theoretical weaknesses (which they have proceeded to do, big time). Again, there is nothing in free-market theory that requires the existence of corporations, and we gain nothing in the real world (and lose a lot) by continuing to defend their existence.

Daiwa Bank - I don't think you actually read this one because although it names Daiwa Bank, the suit is actually a criminal case against a specific employee: MASAXIRO TSUDA.

Read down a bit, and you’ll find a separate indictment against the bank itself.

By the way, I didn’t bring up the issue of civil vs. criminal liability, and it’s not central to my position. I was simply responding to your assertion that “the author completely misunderstands the critical difference between criminal and civil law and thus draws erroneous conclusions.”

"I’m not trying to persuade you to my position. I simply want to point out to other readers the nature of the corporatist con game masquerading as a free-market economy."

Uh, you are trying to persuade anyone reading this. That's why you brought attention to it.

There's nothing shameful or wrong in this process at all. Quite the opposite. I think that it is important to bring out our positions and try to persuade others to agree. And despite our disagreements on the merits of this particular issue, I applaud you for sticking to the arguments at hand. This has been a great example of just the kind of debate that should be taking place on any controversial subject. My hat is off to you as a worthy debater!

"...The issue instead is that, by granting limited liability to owners of corporations and denying it to unincorporated firms, the government is creating a double standard in the marketplace, one that favors corporations over individuals.”

When one incorporates, one is paying for a legal service. That service is a fixed cost and provides fixed benefits and is generally applicable. But a complaint that one should be able to take advantage of such without doing what is necessary to qualify is just like arguing that illegals should be treated just like citizens even though they fail to go through the proper immigration procedures. It's an inherently contradictory argument prima faciae.

It's not a double standard, however. The author of the article is complaining that business ventures (individuals, etc.) which don't pay for a service should be able to get the same benefits as ones who do. That argument directly calls for a double-standard while trying to argue the contrary. It's absurd. It's not favoritism, either, since everyone has to follow the same laws on incorporation and pay the same fees. You would have a substantiated argument if some applications for incorporation were given different treatment than others (fees waived, etc.) or if some were only available to the politically-connected (as happens in China or arguably in Japan with the kairetsus).

"An unincorporated sole proprietorship, for instance, is not required to have a registered agent, a board of directors or an issuance of stock as part of its business structure."

You can structure an unincorporated business about any way you want, sure. What's your point? I've sat on the Board of Directors of an LLC. It consisted of my father-in-law (who owned all the shares and all the voting rights since he started the company), myself, and another brother-in-law. We met once a year to discuss and vote on which health insurance plan to go with for the 30 employees of our small tech firm. It cost us about two hours every year. Yawn.

Businesses adopt management structures which fit their needs whether they incorporate or not. My point was that there is an incorporated version of any unincorporated structure you want to bring up. The barriers to incorporation are extraordinarily low IMHO. If the argument is that certain individuals weigh the costs of incorporating against the benefits and find the benefits lacking, I can completely understand and respect such a decision. That's a personal evaluation of a risk-reward scenario. What I fail to see adequately justified are these claims of unfairness.

"The “small fee” is typically hundreds of dollars or more per year, and ongoing paperwork is required."

Depends on where you incorporate. Where I live, it's a one-time fee and one-time paperwork - aside from filing tax statements every quarter. There may be some jurisdictions (like California and New York) where incorporation is much more onerous. No disagreement there.

"Here are some news items relating to criminal charges against other corporations"

BP - a regulated industry which gets grants to mine on public lands and is therefore under direct government purview and contractually obligated to maintain their equipment, etc.
ADM - violating the Corrupt Practices Act which concerns businesses who fail to follow the proper procedures in international business dealings, i.e. governed by government treaties (contracts).
Daiwa Bank - I don't think you actually read this one because although it names Daiwa Bank, the suit is actually a criminal case against a specific employee: MASAXIRO TSUDA.
Sears - This one is prosecuted against a bankrupt company for fraud. Of the four, this one is by far the most compelling example of the criminal prosecution of a corporation.

What I am seeing is that the three in question (ignoring the personal case against Tsuda) were all subject to government conditions - ie contractual obligations. That includes a company going through bankruptcy proceedings. When the government is one of the parties to a contract, it acts as both a party and arbiter (through separate branches) and all cases are by their very nature criminal because it is the government which prosecutes them - even though the terms are for breach of contract against the "People." Yes, its a middle-ground area and a legal technicality. What I'm missing in any of these is what shows these companies were granted special rights or privileges from incorporation as claimed by the author. (Again, separation of property has been justified as a legitimate and equally-available service.)

I’m not trying to persuade you to my position. I simply want to point out to other readers the nature of the corporatist con game masquerading as a free-market economy.

Since you read the article I cited, please re-read the section that says: “Although libertarians disagree about the extent to which individual stockholders should be held responsible for corporate misconduct, that is not the issue here. The issue instead is that, by granting limited liability to owners of corporations and denying it to unincorporated firms, the government is creating a double standard in the marketplace, one that favors corporations over individuals.”

If limited liability has a proper place in a free-market economy, as you assert, then it should apply equally and impartially to all legitimate businesses, not just ones that are willing to register with the government and submit to its rules for the “privilege” of obtaining limited liability. In other words, no double standards.

My point was not that you can't have an unincorporated sole proprietorship, but that every business structure has a corporate version.

That’s not what you said, and it’s not the case anyway. An unincorporated sole proprietorship, for instance, is not required to have a registered agent, a board of directors or an issuance of stock as part of its business structure.

The difference is filling out some paperwork and submitting a small fee.

The “small fee” is typically hundreds of dollars or more per year, and ongoing paperwork is required.

You're going to need to provide a LOT more than one outlier - especially one controlled by a governmental entity - to support your assertion.

Here are some news items relating to criminal charges against other corporations (and none of them are public utilities):

https://www.theguardian.com/environme...

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/adm-su...

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/cas60.htm

https://www.newsweek.com/sorry-side-s...

Are these enough examples?

If you want me to say that my absolute statement has a few outliers I'll concede that because I didn't consider the corner case of public utilities. I shouldn't have used an absolute. If PG&E is the best example you can come up with, however - a governmentally-controlled utility - then your argument isn't half as solid as you claim. You're trying to present this as if this is a mainstream problem - the norm rather than the exception.

I gave you two very high-profile cases in which entire (massive) corporations were shuttered because their corporate officers were prosecuted individually and criminally. You're going to need to provide a LOT more than one outlier - especially one controlled by a governmental entity - to support your assertion.

"No they’re not."

Good grief. My point was not that you can't have an unincorporated sole proprietorship, but that every business structure has a corporate version. The difference is filling out some paperwork and submitting a small fee. The way you were using them was as if this - again - was mainstream and a huge problem. I have yet to be convinced. Again: I've read the article. I see lots of conjecture.
What I don't see are actual examples. Without those, the article falls far short of a compelling case. Repeatedly quoting the article only emphasizes the shortcomings in the argument. If the problem is really as pervasive as you claim, then coming up with examples to expand and bolster your argument should be a simple thing to do. Lacking those, however...

"Government favoritism is built in to corporate law."

The only complaint I see enumerated is that an individual's personal assets become separate from the corporate assets. If your only gripe is that you can't sue for Bill Gates' for his Redmond compound because Windows crashed and you lost 40 pages of your book and had to retype it, it's an incredibly weak (and petty) argument. Here's why:

Corporate officers are frequently the target of corporate lawsuits because of actions of subordinates. If there was no separation of assets, those officers' private/personal property would be subject to claims. Those are disastrous terms under which no one would ever agree to run a company.

Seriously. Bankruptcy laws are a corrollary to this. It is hugely chilling upon the formation of entrepreneurial enterprises if their personal assets are on the line when they go to start a business. I don't know too many entrepreneurs who say "you know, I'm 100% willing to risk my home and my investment portfolio because I have a great idea." If you want to persuade me to your position, you need to provide a MUCH better example of favoritism than merely a legal separation of property - which has very practical uses.

"Since corporations can own, buy, and sell one another, a privilege rightly denied to individuals, it is easy to establish a chain of corporate ownership to conceal the identity of the true owners, by setting up the controlling corporations in different domestic jurisdictions or in other countries."

Individuals can purchase corporations. Rush Limbaugh wanted to purchase an NFL team. Mark Cuban owns the Dallas Mavericks. The reason individuals don't purchase corporations again goes back the legal liability issue: smart people aren't going to risk their homes and retirement savings on a lawsuit.

Can corporations intentionally create chains of ownership which are hard to unravel? Yes. But unless there are illicit activities going on, why does that matter? It's actually very smart to incorporate every distinct business enterprise separately because - again - you are able to separate corporate assets from individual assets. It's actually very common in startups even within an established company - again - because in so doing one is limiting one's legal liability. If that's the primary objection, I can completely understand why there's very little traction for such - even in this forum.

PG&E is a public utility.

So what? PG&E is also a publicly traded corporation, with stockholders. You said, “Criminal cases are always of one individual against another individual rather than corporations vs corporations; the notion of a corporation being a party in a criminal suit is completely moot/absurd.” I provided a clear counterexample, refuting your argument. My original statement stands.

"True, but the same is true of partnerships, sole proprietorships and other forms of business organization." Which are all corporations.

No they’re not. “A sole proprietorship is an unincorporated business with only one owner who pays personal income tax on profits earned.” (http://Investopedia.com) “A partnership is a form of business where there is more than one owner and the business is not operated as a corporation or a limited liability company (LLC).” (upcounsel.com) Details of these types of unincorporated businesses can be found on the above websites. My original statement is correct.

Please cite some of the difficulties you claim exist solely because the business has incorporated and which aren't a result of government favoritism.

Government favoritism is built in to corporate law. As the article I referenced states, “Suing a corporation is a difficult, expensive and time-consuming process — much more so than suing another person. A corporation can easily dissolve or go bankrupt, even as its owners continue to prosper. A judge’s approval is usually needed to “pierce the corporate veil” and sue the owners directly. Such approval can be difficult or impossible to obtain, especially in jurisdictions that advertise themselves as friendly to corporations. Since corporations can own, buy, and sell one another, a privilege rightly denied to individuals, it is easy to establish a chain of corporate ownership to conceal the identity of the true owners, by setting up the controlling corporations in different domestic jurisdictions or in other countries.”

Civil courts deal with contractual disputes - not criminal ones.

Civil courts can also deal with civil damages arising from violations of individual rights, such as property damage or noise from barking dogs. Not every violation of individual rights is a criminal offense or necessitates a contract between the two contesting parties. Once again, my original statement is correct.

PG&E is a public utility. By virtue of that the individuals running PG&E are protected as quasi-government employees. I wouldn't be surprised but that is common in the charter set up for many power companies - not just PG&E. I think you'll also find that if you want to refer to the penalties some banking institutions get charged for various schemes, they are covered under the same quasi-governmental protections. That's why I cited the Enron and Arthur Andersen cases as prime examples because those are the norm - not the exception.

“Many people are surprised to discover that a corporation can be found guilty of a crime — a testament, perhaps, to how rarely they are prosecuted.”

Not at all. It's because criminal prosecutions only apply to corporations in extremely rare situations - not because somehow they are immune or have special protections.

"True, but the same is true of partnerships, sole proprietorships and other forms of business organization."

Which are all corporations. S-Corps, LLCs, etc. are all forms of corporations. https://corporations.uslegal.com/type... There are a dozen different types of corporations which cover just about any management structure seen in business. Please cite a real structure of a company which does not conform to one of the linked structures. References to hypotheticals or vaguaries are not useful.

"The article to which I referred was specifically concerned with the difficulty of suing a corporation, which is a civil action."

Please cite some of the difficulties you claim exist solely because the business has incorporated and which aren't a result of government favoritism.

"They can be either or both. Civil lawsuits can be brought for violations of a person’s property rights, for instance."

Examples? Theft, larceny, fraud, vandalism, embezzlement, etc. are all criminal offenses - even if misdemeanors (petty theft, vandalism). Civil courts deal with contractual disputes - not criminal ones.

I believe your arguments above are mistaken, both factually and in regard to the points that I brought up:

Criminal cases are always of one individual against another individual rather than corporations vs corporations; the notion of a corporation being a party in a criminal suit is completely moot/absurd.

Not true. Corporations can be, and sometimes are, convicted of criminal offenses. Here’s a recent example: https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-...

“Many people are surprised to discover that a corporation can be found guilty of a crime — a testament, perhaps, to how rarely they are prosecuted.”

Corporations serve a civil purpose - not a criminal one.

True, but the same is true of partnerships, sole proprietorships and other forms of business organization. So this fact does not justify treating corporations differently from other businesses.

This fundamental misunderstanding leads to author to conjecture that corporations provide some sort of protection from criminal prosecution unavailable to other "business entities."

The article to which I referred was specifically concerned with the difficulty of suing a corporation, which is a civil action. It said nothing whatever about a corporation providing protection from criminal prosecution.

Violations of individual rights are criminal offenses rather than civil ones.

They can be either or both. Civil lawsuits can be brought for violations of a person’s property rights, for instance.

Please see the other thread. I have identified the fundamental flaw in the argument to be a misunderstanding of civil vs criminal behaviors. The author completely misunderstands these two and thus misapplies reason.

"I used the term “modern” corporation to differentiate it from the original historical definition that you presented in an earlier post: “In the beginning, corporations were solely government instruments by which political appointees were granted special dispensations to pursue a quasi-governmental policy.”

Perfect. I am in agreement.

"My central argument, that unincorporated business entities deserve to have the same protection as incorporated ones, is simply another way of saying that governments should not discriminate among the different types of business entities – or any other voluntary groups – in matters pertaining to protection of individual rights."

I think I have finally isolated the flaw in this contention. The author completely misunderstands the critical difference between criminal and civil law and thus draws erroneous conclusions. (I also outline the distinct difference between a civil and criminal offense in my book and why they are treated differently according to the law.)

Corporations serve a civil purpose - not a criminal one. This fundamental misunderstanding leads to author to conjecture that corporations provide some sort of protection from criminal prosecution unavailable to other "business entities." This leads further to the fundamentally-flawed conclusion that corporations are unjustified for any reason. Violations of individual rights are criminal offenses rather than civil ones. Criminal cases are always of one individual against another individual rather than corporations vs corporations; the notion of a corporation being a party in a criminal suit is completely moot/absurd. One does not prosecute corporations but rather the officers of the corporation - see Arthur Andersen or Enron (fraud is a criminal charge - not a civil one).

In regards to government protection of individual rights, I am in complete agreement that individual rights should be protected by government with zero disparity or preferential treatment.