"Corporations wouldn't exist without the State" according to Stefan, elaboration?

[jrodefeld]

Hello everyone,

 

I have basically come full on board with the anarchist (anarcho capitalist) ideology.  For a while I was a minarchist not quite able to fully comprehend a state less society.  But after reading Hans Hermann Hoppe and listening to Stefan Molyneux and a few others, I understand how security and private law can accomplish in a more moral and efficient manner what many libertarians consider the limited but important functions of government.

I still think from a pragmatic perspective that it is much harder to convince people of the morality and worth of an anarchist society vs advocating for a minarchist government.  Therefore, I am not opposed to political action to move the needle towards reducing the "tumor" as the expression goes, hoping that later on we can take the final step into a truly state less society.

I am intrigued by a statement I keep hearing by Stefan, where he admits that corporations are an evil, but one that is artifically sanctioned by the government.  He claims that in the absence of the State, there would be only people and not this artificial entity called the corporation.

Now, as I'm sure your aware, one of the biggest motivators for people to defend the government is the idea that corporations need a "check" on their power by a group that ostensibly represents the interests of the average person.

These same people feel that by eliminating government it will only empower corporations and the "rich" or privaleged class.

 

Could some of you possibly elaborate on Stefan's claim that corporations wouldn't exist without a State?  I am not sure what he means by this.  Sure there would be no subsidies and special privaleges, but couldn't a "corporation" be created merely by voluntary contract?

Maybe I am being tripped up on semantics, but for us to "win" this argument, I think it is imperitive that we can articulate that without a State, corporations or the "rich" will in fact NOT be more empowered or in a position of privalege.  

 

Not that "egalitarianism" would be a stated goal, but I always was of the belief that the free market trended towards egalitarianist outcomes because people could only become wealthy by satisfying the needs of others, therefore a wide gap between the very rich and the poor would not really exist.  The moment a business man is not providing value for his customers, he will lose them, lose market share and a viable competitor will take his place.

Thus, large income inequalities would not exist in a State less society.

 

Do you see were I am going with this?  Have you heard Stefan claim that corporations would not exist in a state less society?  Can you elaborate on this statement and address the broader points I have raised here?

 

I really appreciate it.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

Corporations were created by the state for the purpose of protecting their owners from liability and to allow them to rake profits when business is good, while avoiding personal loss when it is bad. In a stateless society, they would exist in as much as the structure of the company is concerned (shareholders, directors, et al) but they would not provide financial impunity to those who're running them. For instance, when BP tainted the gulf of Mexico with oil, the executives who run the company were not held personally liable for the damages caused. The company was but if the company hadn't had the money to make repairs and reperations, those executives would still not have been held personally liable.

 

I suspect that in a stateless society, corporations would protect themselves from loss due to mismanagement through some sort of insurance but that's another topic.

 

As for large income disparities, I don't know what you mean. There will always be those who choose not to be wealthy and there will always be those who choose to be as wealthy as possible. This is a personal choice that people make and it won't change once the state is gone. I think it's safe to argue that executive pay wouldn't be as high as it is now in a lot of industries but there will be income inequality.

[Rick Horton]

it doesn't matter if coorporations could exist without a State, because there has always been a State. There has never been a time in documented history of either human or biological science that has seen equal behavior, accepting and honorable, intellectually compatible and respectful in ANY life form for any large group. Even at the smallest levels, between 2 to 3 people there inevitably becomes a power struggle and a winner, or more powerful of the group ends up controlling certain aspects of the dealings. By nature people are more, and less pursuasive, driven, intelligent, influencial, etc, so rulers ALWAYS surface and it cannot be stopped by those that lack the very power that got the rulers where they are. That is the dilemna for better or worse. 

SO, coorporations may not be able to exist without a State, but neither do humans. Remember it doesn't take uniforms, costumes, books with signatures, and people who are willing to call a State a State to make States what they are. It takes groups of people, or even 1 very powerful person to become a State, and there have always been rulers over people.  And size has no application in verifying the existence of a State. It is not documented anywhere that a State has to be some kind of FORMAL thing that we point to and therefore call a State, other than that it has power over people. And some people have power over others. So the people with the most power in ANY area are the State. The USA is the world STATE. There have always been STATES even without nations, cities, etc...

     Stefan has gone so far as to even say that "parents" are the State in families.

[Rick Horton]

And I'm not derailing the thread. This applies to the entire PREMISE of the OP's question, which becomes moot, considering.

[RestoringGuy]

I have stopped distinguishing between corporations and the state.  The campaign contributions, bailouts and tax credits guarantee enough influence goes both ways to make the two things act as one.  We should have learned in the 90's, with Microsoft being grilled for inclusion of a web browser (and witness subsequent lock-ins now standard on Apple, Mobile/Tablets,etc.), that a corporation does not get state goodies unless it pays up.  The more a corporation donates to the politicians, the more it's abuses are ignored.

[Rick Horton]

 

I have stopped distinguishing between corporations and the state.  The campaign contributions, bailouts and tax credits guarantee enough influence goes both ways to make the two things act as one.  We should have learned in the 90's, with Microsoft being grilled for inclusion of a web browser (and witness subsequent lock-ins now standard on Apple, Mobile/Tablets,etc.), that a corporation does not get state goodies unless it pays up.  The more a corporation donates to the politicians, the more it's abuses are ignored.

 

Yeah. I agree. There's absolutely no distinguishing between what capitalism inevitably brings, and what the State brings. They use each other. Both are the State as far as I can tell. And who controls who? Meh, it's a wash. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. Capitalism breeds competition. Competition breeds winners. Winners means losers. This is a reflection of life itself, and how every organism on Earth competes. There is no "fair". There is will, comprimise, winning, losing, strategy, conformity, individuality, progress, regress, pain, pleasure,  BUT nobody is equal. No lifeform is equal to another. Not in it's own species, and not outside of its own species. 

[lyghtningrod]

 

 Capitalism breeds competition. Competition breeds winners. Winners means losers. This is a reflection of life itself, and how every organism on Earth competes.

 

In a voluntary trade, all that participate are winners, with no losers. This is a fundamental fact of economics.

If you start from faulty premises, you will arrive at faulty conculsions.

 

[Rick Horton]

 

 

 Capitalism breeds competition. Competition breeds winners. Winners means losers. This is a reflection of life itself, and how every organism on Earth competes.

 

In a voluntary trade, all that participate are winners, with no losers. This is a fundamental fact of economics.

If you start from faulty premises, you will arrive at faulty conculsions.

 

 

There is NO evidence for your claim. Your claim is not varifiable, and I donnot accept it. On the other hand my claim is verifiable because it's all around us, every day.

[BaloJelli]

 

 

 

 Capitalism breeds competition. Competition breeds winners. Winners means losers. This is a reflection of life itself, and how every organism on Earth competes.

 

In a voluntary trade, all that participate are winners, with no losers. This is a fundamental fact of economics.

If you start from faulty premises, you will arrive at faulty conculsions.

 

 

There is NO evidence for your claim. Your claim is not varifiable, and I donnot accept it. On the other hand my claim is verifiable because it's all around us, every day.

 

 

If you want the Ipod more than you want the money and Apple want the money more than the Ipod, who exactly loses?

[Rick Horton]

 

 

 

 

 Capitalism breeds competition. Competition breeds winners. Winners means losers. This is a reflection of life itself, and how every organism on Earth competes.

 

In a voluntary trade, all that participate are winners, with no losers. This is a fundamental fact of economics.

If you start from faulty premises, you will arrive at faulty conculsions.

 

 

There is NO evidence for your claim. Your claim is not varifiable, and I donnot accept it. On the other hand my claim is verifiable because it's all around us, every day.

 

 

If you want the Ipod more than you want the money and Apple want the money more than the Ipod, who exactly loses?

 

I can't afford either, but taking yours wouldn't make you happy. That would be stealing. Of course when a lot of people can't afford stuff any more stealing bread becomes survival.  If you can't handle this simple angle without talking about toys then I don't want to have this discussion with you.

[lyghtningrod]

 

If you want the Ipod more than you want the money and Apple
want the money more than the Ipod, who exactly loses?

 

 

I can't afford either, but taking yours wouldn't make you happy.
That would be stealing. Of course when a lot of people can't afford
stuff any more stealing bread becomes survival.  If you can't
handle this simple angle without talking about toys then I don't want
to have this discussion with you.

 

It is foundational for economics that
all voluntary trade has two winners and no losers. As Balo said, he
wants the iPod more than the money, while the merchant wants the
money more than the iPod.

Another example. You would probably see
no reason to trade a $10 bil for a ten dollar bill. It would just be
a waste of time. But if I asked you if you had a five and five ones
for my ten, then you might make the trade knowing that the only
'profit' you will make is the satisfaction of helping me pay the
parking meter. But is is still a win win situation.

Also, there was no talk about stealing,
so again you equivocate. We are talking about the fact that all
voluntary economic activity is good for all the participants, while
you prat on about stealing things.

You are really good at that
equivovation

It grows tiring.

And to finish up, you also talk about capitalism as competition
without acknowledging the other obvious fact about capitalism, namely
the cooperation inherent in the division of labor.

 

[Rick Horton]

 

P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

 

If you want the Ipod more than you want the money and Apple
want the money more than the Ipod, who exactly loses?

 

 

I can't afford either, but taking yours wouldn't make you happy.
That would be stealing. Of course when a lot of people can't afford
stuff any more stealing bread becomes survival.  If you can't
handle this simple angle without talking about toys then I don't want
to have this discussion with you.

 

It is foundational for economics that
all voluntary trade has two winners and no losers. As Balo said, he
wants the iPod more than the money, while the merchant wants the
money more than the iPod.

Another example. You would probably see
no reason to trade a $10 bil for a ten dollar bill. It would just be
a waste of time. But if I asked you if you had a five and five ones
for my ten, then you might make the trade knowing that the only
'profit' you will make is the satisfaction of helping me pay the
parking meter. But is is still a win win situation.

Also, there was no talk about stealing,
so again you equivocate. We are talking about the fact that all
voluntary economic activity is good for all the participants, while
you prat on about stealing things.

You are really good at that
equivovation

It grows tiring.

And to finish up, you also talk about capitalism as competition
without acknowledging the other obvious fact about capitalism, namely
the cooperation inherent in the division of labor.

 

 

 

Yeah, in principle it all sounds right, but in practice Capitalism just leads to a State. The biggest winners become the ones who have more power, control, leverage. They become the rulers. In a Capitolist society stuff (whether needs or wants) is obtained in greater amounts by people with more money. This includes property as well. People with the most money get the most attention because they can pay more, so society reflects the rich and not the poor. There is absolutely no evidence that the hardest workers make the most money. There's no evidence that the workers who create the things needed most make more money. There is no evidence that the people who create the most honest goods, and perpetuate the most meaningful contributions make the most money. There is no moral structure in Capitalism aside from reputation, which in itself doesn't cover all of the bases. A guy who works really hard cleaning pools all day in the 100 degree weather, and is honest, doesn't have equal access to things compared to the great nephew of some guy who created the paper clip back in the 1800's.  Capitalism is a reflection of nature, and competition. Nobody ever says that the free market is or wouldn't be competitive. Competition leads to losers. That's all fine and dandy, but I don't see why there is a need to try and morally justify it like it is fair, and that everybody wins.  That's not supported by reality. 

[endostate]

 

Yeah, in principle it all sounds right, but in practice Capitalism just leads to a State. The biggest winners become the ones who have more power, control, leverage. They become the rulers.

 

How does the transition happen? How does a business go from serving voluntary customers to forcing service and stealing the payment?  Wouldn't theft be considered immoral by a capitalist society and be rejected immediately? Take me through the steps.

[lyghtningrod]

 

Yeah, in principle it all sounds right, but in practice Capitalism just leads to a State...

 

So instead of addressing the points, you simply change the goal posts.

The point is 'all voluntary trade benefits both parties.' If true, this destroys your previous argument that capitalism is all about losers and winners.

You are ignoring this in order to distract us from the fact that you don't have a counter to this, nor to the fact that capitalism is as much cooperation as competition.

As far as your insistence that trading freely leads to a State, well that is nothing more than an assertion that you havn't backed up with any proof other than "I say so, so there."

 

[Rick Horton]

 

 

Yeah, in principle it all sounds right, but in practice Capitalism just leads to a State...

 

So instead of addressing the points, you simply change the goal posts.

The point is 'all voluntary trade benefits both parties.' If true, this destroys your previous argument that capitalism is all about losers and winners.

You are ignoring this in order to distract us from the fact that you don't have a counter to this, nor to the fact that capitalism is as much cooperation as competition.

As far as your insistence that trading freely leads to a State, well that is nothing more than an assertion that you havn't backed up with any proof other than "I say so, so there."

 

 

No. I'm NOT moving the goal posts. You haven't made your argument AT ALL. You totally fail to see how Capitalism is competitive. Do you know what competition is? And I'm not making an assertion. Hell, Anarchy is not only an assertion but it doesn't exist at all in reality. It's a religious view. 

Competition-Competition in biology, ecology, andsociology, is a contest between organisms, animals, individuals, groups, etc., forterritory, a niche, or a location of resources, for resources and goods, for prestige,recognition, awards, mates, or group or social status, for leadership; it is the opposite of cooperation. It arises whenever at least two parties strive for a goal which cannot be shared or which is desired individually but not in sharing and cooperation. Competition occurs naturallybetween living organisms which co-exist in the same environment. For example, animals compete over water supplies, food, mates, and other biological resources. Humans compete usually for food and mates, though when these needs are met deep rivalries often arise over the pursuit ofwealth, prestige, and fame. Competition is also a major tenet in market economy and business is often associated with competition as most companies are in competition with at least one other firm over the same group of customers, and also competition inside a company is usually stimulated for meeting and reaching higher quality of services or products that the company produce or develop.

[Kevin Beal]

Competition fosters cooperation such as in the case of cell phone towers being shared between different carriers, or bulk rates for other competing stores or the cooperation within a single company. Cooperation and competition are not mutually exclusive.

[Rick Horton]

 

Competition fosters cooperation such as in the case of cell phone towers being shared between different carriers, or bulk rates for other competing stores or the cooperation within a single company. Cooperation and competition are not mutually exclusive.

 

I agree. Competition can foster cooperation. But it's rare enough to make news when it happens.

 

[Kevin Beal]

No, every single company is an example, so is dating and most of life itself. It's only in statist situations where there is central planning and other barriers preventing people from cooperating in ways that benefit them economically is it rare. It's rare in protection and dispute resolution, it's rare in war, rare in education etc. It's the norm in business or personal relationships.

[Rick Horton]

 

No, every single company is an example, so is dating and most of life itself. It's only in statist situations where there is central planning and other barriers preventing people from cooperating in ways that benefit them economically is it rare. It's rare in protection and dispute resolution, it's rare in war, rare in education etc. It's the norm in business or personal relationships.

 

Really? How do you come to that conclusion? Do you have knowledge that science doesn't have? Every single company and dating relationship is an example of "what"? "What" is rare in war? "What" is rare in education? "What" is the norm in business or personal relationships? Are you saying that competition is voluntary? Are you saying that if you live in a Capitalist society it is voluntary whether you compete to survive well?

[Kevin Beal]

 

 

No, every single company is an example, so is dating and most of life itself. It's only in statist situations where there is central planning and other barriers preventing people from cooperating in ways that benefit them economically is it rare. It's rare in protection and dispute resolution, it's rare in war, rare in education etc. It's the norm in business or personal relationships.

 

Really? How do you come to that conclusion? Do you have knowledge that science doesn't have?

 

You claimed that cooperation coming out of competition was extremely rare. That proposition is what I'm addressing.

Do companies cooperate with each other and do employees cooperate, or not? Obviously they do and this is about as universal as it gets so you're simply wrong.

As to the other proposition that the state comes out of this kind of competition, you need only look at the fact that the state owns a monopoly it protects through violence in these areas I mentioned as evidence this claim is false. Why would it protect it violently if healthy competition was all they needed to root?

And yes, I absolutely have knowledge that "science" doesn't have because science is just a concept. It has no mind to think or know.

The dating thing might be (understandably) confusing and it's not really necessary to get into anyway so ignore that one.

[Alan C.]

Firms would exist; corporations wouldn't.

A corporation is a grant of State privilege which accords legal indemnity.

[Guest darkskyabove]

I can foresee the continued existence of the corporate structure: shareholders, board of directors, etc. But without the Sumpreme Court fiction of granting them the status of "person", and, of course, without the force of the State in their pocket.

Without force and coercion, what's to prevent a business, which provides superior-quality goods and services, from growing beyond the small business model into a rather large concern?

Although there is the inertia factor. I don't know if a large, reputable company could continue providing the same quality consumer experience to the exclusion of real competition at the local level. As example, I believe most people would prefer to shop at the corner store, but the current politco-economic morass makes Wal-Mart the more practical alternative; when your purchasing power has been decimated by government fiat, you've got to maximize your resources. Which continues the cycle: small business = out of business as the corporate monster moves in.

Luckily, we have no Wal-Mart here in Forks, YET! I am able to do ~80% of my trade with local businesses, whereas, it was the reverse when living in Taxifornia. Sorry Allan, I love Cali, just hate their politics (not that you're safe anywhere, just a matter of degree).

 

[Kevin Beal]

 

I can foresee the continued existence of the corporate structure: shareholders, board of directors, etc. But without the Sumpreme Court fiction of granting them the status of "person", and, of course, without the force of the State in their pocket.

I agree completely as does (apparently) Stephan Kinsella:

[Alan C.]

Diseconomies of scale, and the dissociation of internal transaction costs from market prices, would impose a natural upper limit on firm size. Massive firms would become uncompetitive with smaller, nimbler firms with localized knowledge.

Concern about firms growing too large and dominating the market is unwarranted in my opinion. I think that a greater concern is the corrupting influence of State intervention into the market (eg. price distortions, barriers to entry).

[Guest darkskyabove]

Thanks Kevin. Another solid discussion with Stefan. Slowly working my way through vids, casts, and writings.

 

... I think that a greater concern is the corrupting influence of State intervention into the market (eg. price distortions, barriers to entry).

 

Complete agreement. Especially considering the full list probably wouldn't fit in one post.

I guess my concept of a corporation existing without the state is more along the lines of a firm. Take away the legalese, and the hidden guns, and people could still choose to invest money into a business which they don't actually run. Thinking a little deeper, I remembered the idea that committees can't make decisions. Ultimately, an individual had to formulate a decision, though it might require the approval of others before implementation.

That could go to the heart of corporate failure without State support. Boards of Directors are not exactly known for making quality decisions. Nor timely ones.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

 

No, every single company is an example, so is dating and most of life itself. It's only in statist situations where there is central planning and other barriers preventing people from cooperating in ways that benefit them economically is it rare. It's rare in protection and dispute resolution, it's rare in war, rare in education etc. It's the norm in business or personal relationships.

 

Really? How do you come to that conclusion? Do you have knowledge that science doesn't have?

 

You claimed that cooperation coming out of competition was extremely rare. 

 

No I didn't.

 

Do companies cooperate with each other and do employees cooperate, or not? Obviously they do and this is about as universal as it gets so you're simply wrong.

 

Companies compete with other companies and if they don't they go out of business.

 

As to the other proposition that the state comes out of this kind of competition, you need only look at the fact that the state owns a monopoly it protects through violence in these areas I mentioned as evidence this claim is false. Why would it protect it violently if healthy competition was all they needed to root?

 

What's to prevent violent competition in a Stateless "society"? Nothing. Hell, the argument Stef proposes about reputation being the force that keeps people in line is more creepy and terrifying than the State is. Also, a convincing company will and does manipulate it's clients into believing plans of domination over other companies all of the time through marketing ploys, back room strategies, litigation, subversion, lies, and straight out deception, and threats. There's nothing moral about that. If a company (and they do) convince people that they will make a profit, then people will go along with the ploy. Not all but MANY. And this isn't in a vacuum. MANY companies will do this. It will just become common place. It will become unwritten procedure. In other words, Corporations will become the State. (actually they already are The State when it comes down to it) so their influence will be as deceptive as it is now, confusion and uncertainty will be the playing field that makes them all dominate over the people. (Just like now). 

 

 

And yes, I absolutely have knowledge that "science" doesn't have because science is just a concept. It has no mind to think or know.

The dating thing might be (understandably) confusing and it's not really necessary to get into anyway so ignore that one.

 

So, as an anarchist you can ignore scientific method when it suits you..... 

     Capitalism is competitive. The champions of the game will rule the playing field. They do now, and they would without a State. But that's boring to me because in actuality they are the same players as the State anyhow. They control the puppet State anyhow. They have influence. You do not, unless you have the power. You don't have power without money and you won't have money unless you have the power. The power comes from the ability to influence, and THAT influece is what makes the STATE rule over "you"

 

[Mister Mister]

  Competition in the market is not the same as competition in Nature.  In Nature, there is no such thing as property rights.  A snake will happily sneak into a birds nest and take their eggs.  One monkey will attack another monkey for a banana.  A squirrel's buried nuts are not safe from other squirrels.  So by agreeing to respect property and trade, we are in a much different relation than in nature.  This tends to reward not the biggest and strongest and most ruthless, but the most innovative, creative, and communicative.  Thus the market is inherently cooperative, which allows for the production of goods that no one person could ever make.

[Rick Horton]

 

  Competition in the market is not the same as competition in Nature.  In Nature, there is no such thing as property rights.  A snake will happily sneak into a birds nest and take their eggs.  One monkey will attack another monkey for a banana.  A squirrel's buried nuts are not safe from other squirrels.  So by agreeing to respect property and trade, we are in a much different relation than in nature.  This tends to reward not the biggest and strongest and most ruthless, but the most innovative, creative, and communicative.  Thus the market is inherently cooperative, which allows for the production of goods that no one person could ever make.

 

WHAT THE HELL? So markets are not part of nature? Let me tell you something you keep missing. There are no property rights outside of The STATE.  Your argument really blows. I'm sorry to be rude, but you are so wrong that it blows my mind. You think competition doesn't exist in markets in "some" equal way to nature because? Because what? Markets are "outside" of the confinements of reality or something? Jesus fucking Christ man. 

[lyghtningrod]

 

 I'm sorry to be rude

 

And you call yourself a philosopher. Yet you admit to rudeness. So please explain to me how you justify your rudeness with your philosophy, The reason I ask is the one consistency I've seen with you is your willingness to insult ( be rude to) other people, so I want to hear how you justify your rudeness and lack of manners.

[RestoringGuy]

 

WHAT THE HELL?

 

Yes you raise a totally valid point that markets and the state are equally inside/outside nature -- though your prior posts suggest to me you should at least deny they are real things, but just adaptive mechanisms (ie. fictitious ideas that guide us).  Anyway, please admit your response style here is completely messed up.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

WHAT THE HELL?

 

Yes you raise a totally valid point that markets and the state are equally inside/outside nature -- though your prior posts suggest to me you should at least deny they are real things, but just adaptive mechanisms (ie. fictitious ideas that guide us).  Anyway, please admit your response style here is completely messed up.

 

  I apologize for being rude.

[SimonF]

 

So markets are not part of nature?

 

I think nature needs defining. I define it as those processes that are a result of the action of energy upon matter (think weather, sunshine etc.) and of the biological process of life controlled by evolution. These natural actions do not produce any technology.

Markets however are a unique phenomena of human intellect. Only humans have developed technology. Prior to the evolution of human intelllect everything was in a state of nature. I think there are important distinctions to be made.

 

There are no property rights outside of The STATE.

 

So it's not possible to have a free market provide dispute resolution services for disputes over property rights?

[DaveDoggOwns]

 

it doesn't matter if coorporations could exist without a State, because there has always been a State. There has never been a time in documented history of either human or biological science that has seen equal behavior, accepting and honorable, intellectually compatible and respectful in ANY life form for any large group. Even at the smallest levels, between 2 to 3 people there inevitably becomes a power struggle and a winner, or more powerful of the group ends up controlling certain aspects of the dealings.By nature people are more, and less pursuasive, driven, intelligent, influencial, etc, so rulers ALWAYS surface and it cannot be stopped by those that lack the very power that got the rulers where they are. That is the dilemna for better or worse.

Ah, I see. You are confusing egalitarianism with anti-statism.

 

SO, coorporations may not be able to exist without a State, but neither do humans. Remember it doesn't take uniforms, costumes, books with signatures, and people who are willing to call a State a State to make States what they are. It takes groups of people, or even 1 very powerful person to become a State, and there have always been rulers over people.  And size has no application in verifying the existence of a State. It is not documented anywhere that a State has to be some kind of FORMAL thing that we point to and therefore call a State, other than that it has power over people. And some people have power over others. So the people with the most power in ANY area are the State. The USA is the world STATE. There have always been STATES even without nations, cities, etc...

     Stefan has gone so far as to even say that "parents" are the State in families.

 

Rulership =/= statism. Hierarchy =/= statism. Again, you're confusing egalitarianism with anti-statism.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

it doesn't matter if coorporations could exist without a State, because there has always been a State. There has never been a time in documented history of either human or biological science that has seen equal behavior, accepting and honorable, intellectually compatible and respectful in ANY life form for any large group. Even at the smallest levels, between 2 to 3 people there inevitably becomes a power struggle and a winner, or more powerful of the group ends up controlling certain aspects of the dealings.By nature people are more, and less pursuasive, driven, intelligent, influencial, etc, so rulers ALWAYS surface and it cannot be stopped by those that lack the very power that got the rulers where they are. That is the dilemna for better or worse.

Ah, I see. You are confusing egalitarianism with anti-statism.

 

SO, coorporations may not be able to exist without a State, but neither do humans. Remember it doesn't take uniforms, costumes, books with signatures, and people who are willing to call a State a State to make States what they are. It takes groups of people, or even 1 very powerful person to become a State, and there have always been rulers over people.  And size has no application in verifying the existence of a State. It is not documented anywhere that a State has to be some kind of FORMAL thing that we point to and therefore call a State, other than that it has power over people. And some people have power over others. So the people with the most power in ANY area are the State. The USA is the world STATE. There have always been STATES even without nations, cities, etc...

     Stefan has gone so far as to even say that "parents" are the State in families.

 

Rulership =/= statism. Hierarchy =/= statism. Again, you're confusing egalitarianism with anti-statism.

 

Look. You tell me how to get rid of rulers and we'll go from there. You tell me how you stop people from ruling over each other and I'll concede. You tell me how an anarchist can tell a person what to do and we can discuss that interesting angle. 

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

 

Look. You tell me how to get rid of rulers and we'll go from there. You tell me how you stop people from ruling over each other and I'll concede. You tell me how an anarchist can tell a person what to do and we can discuss that interesting angle. 

 

 

You've already learned how and you don't agree with it. In fact, you've mocked it.