- 26 Dec 2010 20:12
#13586185
I understand the sentiment that corporations are state sanctioned organizations, but I feel it important that you understand the role of corporations without the state.
Corporations are granted a charter from the government, but without this they would still exist, if not in name then definitely in concept. Do away with the legal mumbo jumbo, and you're left with a business owned by one or more people. "Corporations" will not exist without the state, but you will not do away with people's ability to associate this way.
In fact, your idea of a business in which all employees are equal shareholders is a corporation where all employees, and no one else, own one share. It is because of this that I disagree with Joben's statement that these sorts of corporations are inefficient. This may be true in practice, but certainly not in principle. If it can work for hundreds of people not associated with the company in any other way than owning stock then it can certainly work for those with the direct relationship of employment. I even knew of a company not far from where I live in the US that was just like this, owned by all employees (though I'm not sure if it was equal ownership). To the best of my knowledge the business was very successful until an unfortunate fire burned the whole thing to ground. I don't think they ever recovered, but surely this isn't because of who owned it.
Corporations are granted a charter from the government, but without this they would still exist, if not in name then definitely in concept. Do away with the legal mumbo jumbo, and you're left with a business owned by one or more people. "Corporations" will not exist without the state, but you will not do away with people's ability to associate this way.
In fact, your idea of a business in which all employees are equal shareholders is a corporation where all employees, and no one else, own one share. It is because of this that I disagree with Joben's statement that these sorts of corporations are inefficient. This may be true in practice, but certainly not in principle. If it can work for hundreds of people not associated with the company in any other way than owning stock then it can certainly work for those with the direct relationship of employment. I even knew of a company not far from where I live in the US that was just like this, owned by all employees (though I'm not sure if it was equal ownership). To the best of my knowledge the business was very successful until an unfortunate fire burned the whole thing to ground. I don't think they ever recovered, but surely this isn't because of who owned it.