The Theory of the corporation

[Tim May]

At 8:24 PM -0400 4/12/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 07:25:33PM -0400, brainteaser wrote:
>>  Thats one thing I don't get about what (many) people post on this list.
>>  There is a lot of shit about the government did this and federal agents
>>  are doing that, but very little about what corporations do. Partly this
>>  is probably because of some sort of a "the market must be right"
>>  mentality, even though as I see it we are a long way from any sort of  
>
>This is naive. Nobody here of any substance has argued "the market is
>always right" or anything of the sort. Anyone remember the Edsel? The
>dot com crash? It is, however, more likely to produce desirable
>effects than state-provided goods and services are.
>
>The reason cypherpunkish types are more concerned about government
>abuses than perceived corporate abuses is that one can switch grocery
>stores if you don't like their privacy policy, but you don't have that
>choice when dealing with the U.S. government.

I like to think of the issue in terms of "coercement."

Though some folks claim they are in some sense "coerced" to buy 
certain products, or shop at certain stores, or pay "high rents," 
this sense of coercion is not at all the same as having someone say 
"Do this or we shoot you."

(The gifted writer P.J. O'Rourke has cast this in the form of "Would 
you have your grandmother shot for this?")

I know of two general classes of agents who do this:

-- the Mafia

-- the government

"Pay us 20% or have your store burned down."

"Pay us 40% or face seizure of your store and 30 years at Terminal Island."

"If you read this book, we will toss you in prison and throw away the key."

"You are not allowed to eat that type of plant. It is forbidden. Do 
it and we'll seize your house, fine you a quarter of a million 
dollars, and send you to prison for 20 years."

"Move along."

"The President is passing through. We'll need to look inside your 
bag. No, smart ass, the Fourth Amendment does not apply in this case."

"COINTELPRO has identified 50 political agents we will deal with. We 
have some guys from MAC-SOG trained to deal with traitors."

"The Company is flying in 20 tons. Pickup at Travis. Make sure the 
local cops are clued-in.  After eliminating the French Connection, 
Khun Sa will be supplying all of our needs."

"It is illegal to speak out against the draft, Mr. Debs. No, smart 
ass, the First Amendment does not apply."

"Mr. Suzuki, you and your family are being ordered to a concentration 
camp in Nevada. No, Mr. Suzuki, neither the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth 
Amendments apply."

"You are not allowed to make that transaction without approval from 
the appropriate agency."

And so on.

Government quickly evolves in nearly all cultures to a thugocracy. 
Sometimes the mailed glove is covered with a fine glove, sometimes it 
is more obvious.

The move away from "coerced transactions" is what characterizes a 
free society. A classically liberal society.

We are, of course, moving ever more quickly to a society in which 
permission must be sought for many classes of actions and 
transactions.

Saying corporations are the main problem is, as Declan says, naive.

Neither Intel or Microsoft can imprison people for not buying their 
products. Neither can threaten to kill those who use Macs. Neither 
can force tax slaves to pay for their new factories.

(There are complications, via tax rebates. But these are generally 
deals whereby the local government promises to give a "tax holiday," 
that is, to agree not to steal from the company, for some number of 
years. Purists like me don't like such deals, but these deals are 
still a far cry from governmnt threatening to enter homes with 
black-clad Ninja assassins.)


--Tim May
-- 
Timothy C. May         tcmay at got.net        Corralitos, California
Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon
Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go
Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns