"Corporations have no implicit right to exist. They are given permission to exist and operate at the state's discretion at the time of their chartering. No corporation can operate in this country unless a state accepts its charter."
It's intereting. You know that, and so do I, and so do maybe 5% of the people in North America. However, so long as most people don't know that, they'll keep assuming corporations intrinsic right to exist.
"While that behavior may be tolerable in animals, I find it a little short of what I expect from humans. Businesses are *NOT* creatures with desires, goals, and instincts of their own and with a right to survival at any cost. They are supposed to be voluntary organizations of humans for their and society's mutual benefit." I'm aware that this is off topic, but i must disagree. The lifeblood of any company is profit, and the means, fair or foul, by which profit is derived are functionally irrelevant. They were never, ever, ever for anyone's mutual benefit, nor will they ever be. Even those who control companies can be unhorsed, and the company may stil soldier on with new leaders. I submit that companies are in a way like a single-celled orgaism, with it's employees as organelles or ribosomes if you will. A company eats (profits and acquisitions) excretes (layoffs, downsizing), and even occasionally reproduces (junior companies that spin off, or perhaps simple growth is enough to imply reproduction). The analogy is incomplete, of course, and by and large companies seek to grow themselves instead of leaving offspring, byut his is fine as the companies have no set mortality limit and so need no offspring to pass its genotype along. Anyone, from Bill Gates down to the lowliest corporate drone, is just an expendable part of Microsoft. Microsoft could be killed by the loss of too many critical organelles at the wrong time, or by lack of food/profit, but it may also ditch Gates and Ballmer at the right time and move on. They're money-nexuses the same way living beings are reverse-entropy nexuses. Try seeing the world that way... rather trippy isn't it? I may be wrong, but it's an interesting idea.
Slashdot Mirror
"Corporations have no implicit right to exist. They are given permission to exist and operate at the state's discretion at the time of their chartering. No corporation can operate in this country unless a state accepts its charter."
It's intereting. You know that, and so do I, and so do maybe 5% of the people in North America. However, so long as most people don't know that, they'll keep assuming corporations intrinsic right to exist.
"While that behavior may be tolerable in animals, I find it a little short of what I expect from humans. Businesses are *NOT* creatures with desires, goals, and instincts of their own and with a right to survival at any cost. They are supposed to be voluntary organizations of humans for their and society's mutual benefit." I'm aware that this is off topic, but i must disagree. The lifeblood of any company is profit, and the means, fair or foul, by which profit is derived are functionally irrelevant. They were never, ever, ever for anyone's mutual benefit, nor will they ever be. Even those who control companies can be unhorsed, and the company may stil soldier on with new leaders. I submit that companies are in a way like a single-celled orgaism, with it's employees as organelles or ribosomes if you will. A company eats (profits and acquisitions) excretes (layoffs, downsizing), and even occasionally reproduces (junior companies that spin off, or perhaps simple growth is enough to imply reproduction). The analogy is incomplete, of course, and by and large companies seek to grow themselves instead of leaving offspring, byut his is fine as the companies have no set mortality limit and so need no offspring to pass its genotype along. Anyone, from Bill Gates down to the lowliest corporate drone, is just an expendable part of Microsoft. Microsoft could be killed by the loss of too many critical organelles at the wrong time, or by lack of food/profit, but it may also ditch Gates and Ballmer at the right time and move on. They're money-nexuses the same way living beings are reverse-entropy nexuses. Try seeing the world that way... rather trippy isn't it? I may be wrong, but it's an interesting idea.