The firm – is it a statist aberration ?

[Trevor Watkins]

Petrus Potgieter raised this issue in another thread, which I thought deserved its own thread>

It is definitely worth thinking about companies. Why do firms actually exist at all? Why isn't all economic life just individuals trading with individuals? As quite nicely explained by Ronald Coase in the essay which got him a Nobel award many years later

https://tannutuva.org/2016/the-nature-of-the-firm/ "the firm is the anti-thesis of the market"

it is because of transaction costs – it is just too expensive (especially in time) to negotiate each and every thing so you constitute a firm which is, after all, basically a small socialist economy (with borders and other illiberal rules). This also takes care of the "socialism never works" fallacy BTW because every company and every family is a socialist economy. It just doesn't work on national level.

[Gabri Rigotti]

One must always revert to absolute first principles to address any issue related to libertarianism or individualism or the same rose by any other name ...

There is the Non Aggression Principle (NAP) to start with.

What does it mean to not initiate the use of physical force against another?

This implies that the other has rights that you are about to transgress if you do so.

But what are these rights and how do they come about?

One can refer to tablets of stone that materialise out of a burning bush as the source of these rights, or the utterings of a very capable and ambitious man with an even more ambitious (older) woman behind him who egged him on and now has followers that throw homosexuals off buildings.

One can read Karl Marx, Mao, Pol Pot, Little Big Fat One, or Mein Kampff ... the list is enormous.

All of these from the Burning Bush to Little Big Fat One say what ethics and morality should be, ought to be, it is an abstract geometry game wherein you choose whatever axioms you prefer and then proceed with a logic that is internally consistent.

So if the first axiom is that Angry God In The Sky says that homosexuals are evil, then throwing them off buildings can be argued with internal consistency that yes they must be thrown off buildings.

Aristotle took another approach, looking at the nature of Man, and seeking to discover ethics and morality proper to Man.

Generally and mostly this got lost along the way until the likes of Locke and Adam Smith and Bastiat arrived.

Locke was still stuck to God's Hip and his followers in America came up with "God given rights" that is quaint but hardly scientific but fortunately sort of coincides with the nature of human beings.

Adam Smith and Bastiat followed an economic route, as to what works, and in that they developed a pretty good idea of what works, as an indication of where the source is that flows ethics and morality proper to human beings, the use of "Man" as the shorthand for human beings also quaint but long past being put to pasture.

Then comes Ayn Rand, a refugee from violent bloody Communism.

She develops Objectivism, embraces the term Capitalism, which only arrives in the literature many decades after Adam Smith and Bastiat conceive of and name the phenomenon that is the free market.

The free market is the free market, whereas Capitalism is a market based activity that is found immersed in political ideologies running from uber fascist on the "Right" to uber communist on the "Left". 

Contemporary equivalents of this today are Singapore and Mainland China respectively.

When Ayn Rand develops Objectivism she proceeds from Aristote and defines her own "Nature of Man" (NoM).

However, she projects herself as the essence of the NoM.

Like the religious fanatics throwing homosexuals off buildings because they are against the "nature" of what their Angry God intended Man to be, not acknowledging and taking responsibility for His Very Own Effing Ups, so Ayn Rand considers any and every instance of altruism a Sin deserving of a fictitious Randian Hell In Eternity.

She does the very same mistake as the moffie killers.

The reality is that human beings have evolved through a process of natural selection, which until a valid alternative scientific model arises, if it ever will, is the best that we can scientifically use to consider what is the nature of human beings?

We should also be proactive and get rid of the term "Nature of Man", like we should get rid of the by now not only imprecise but highly toxic word Capitalism to promote the free market.

The Aristotelian idea that the nature of human beings, Nature of Humans (NoH), be the proper source of ethics and morality sure trumps burning bushes and ambitious Alpha males with even more ambitious Alpha females driving them ... or some frumpy looking German academic or bloodthirsty criminal who in a thousand steps or miles or whatever waving his Little Red Book has caused human pyramids of death unmatched by any other human monstrosity.

Ayn Rand's version is far too short and too biased as the NoH.

Via statistical sampling and modern technology we can discover and define a far more comprehensive NoH.

In a nutshell, the vast majority of us love and desire individual freedom, a bell curve would shape us as ranging from uber egoistic to uber altruistic, Ayn Rand and Mother Teresa being useful respective outlier representations, and a similar bell curve would show how much the breathing in of asbestos fibres spewed artificially into the air by a third party manufacturer that we have not signed the terms of service with will have us die in agony with lung cancer.

From the NoH we can establish the rights of individuals and when the NAP is being transgressed.

The NAP is thus relative to the NoH.

Even better, Trevor Watkins' no harm without consent unites the NAP and the NoH automatically.

A magnificent shorthand, made shorter still as harm with consent, hence, HWC.

We can state that HWC = NoH + NAP.

This sure beats the Burning Bush, The Camel Man, Das Kapital and the Little Red Book ... 😊

Hence, working from this, whether individuals choose to build companies or work as sole proprietors is just a matter of individual choice, HWC.

If you want to work for a company with a hey ho, CEO, look how wonderful I am and check out my lekker chicks, ekse, who torments you and works you like a slave then it is your rightful choice, harm with consent, HWC.

If you cannot stand that corporate crapatitis, like I just, just, just recurring cannot, show them, the corporates that is, your biggest possible Middle Finger and do your own thing ... even if you may still harm yourself, but hell, your choice, HWC 😅

Of course, not all CEOs and executives are like that, and Lone Wolf Sole Proprietors can be beasts in jeans and flip flops too, and I must confess that despite all my grandstanding I am told daily and often what to do by another, but then she is my wife and she is in charge and there is always HWC for me to fall back upon as moral justification  ... 😊

  

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/5097f400-a23e-465e-9b13-52ea329af181n%40googlegroups.com.

--

" It is not the water in the fields that brings true development, rather, it is water in the eyes, or compassion for fellow beings, that brings about real development. "

—Anna Hazare

[Stephen vJ]

Both firms and governments are man-made institutions, but that's about where the similarities end - the government's ability to mobilize resources by means of force is a very clear and fundamental difference. About 25 years ago Denis Dell posted a question in a Mensa yahoo group in which he asked, what if government were run like a business ? I argued that this was impossible, because government is funded by taxes extracted from people by force and fear, meaning there is no counter-acting pressure to reduce costs, because income is only constrained by conscience of which people in government have none. They are wholly convinced that what they do is true and good and righteous. Secondly, they have no constraint on cost or efficiency, because they have no competition - government almost always had a monopoly on all that they do. Without any limit to income or expense, with no profit incentive and no competition, it is impossible to run a government like anything even approximating a company. If you try, it will cease being a government or it won't be a company - the two are fundamentally different.

Of course people come together in groups to better achieve communal goals, but in firms and families and sport clubs they do so voluntarily and can exit any time. When the exception happens (workers locked in a factory or children employed to make sport shoes) we denounce it and protest and boikot. When government does that, we thank the kids for their service and call them patriots. Companies consist entirely of volunteers.

In every case it is still individuals coming together. Contracts are not signed between companies - not only do companies have representatives who sign on the company's behalf (the company has no hands to hold a pen with after all) but also individuals often sign contracts with companies or with each other. There are no employment contracts between companies and groups of workers, only between the company (signed by a designated individual representative) and the individual employee. There are collective bargaining agreements, but even those depend on individual contracts between the union and its members. Of course a firm can be a legal entity without me having an existential libertarian crisis.

Can incorporated legal entities exist without government ? I think they can and I don't mean only in a libertarian utopia with a privatized legal system. The Dutch East India Company comes to mind as a successful international company which largely predated formal national borders as we know them today. It took Dutch law with it, wherever it went and that could certainly be considered a kind of colonization, but it was not quite the same as explorers planting flags on behalf of a king. Today there is a stronger connection between incorporation and government, but the link is not necessary for the existence of companies. Many street traders, spaza shops and garden services do a brisk trade without any connection to or with government of any kind... and the fact that they are small while bigger companies do formally incorporate with government paperwork is only an indication of the power of government going after big fish, not evidence that companies need it to exist.

In some respects I agree with the concept of individualism (good) vs. collectivism (evil)... but I also think this paints libertarianism with a bit of a prepper, lone wolf, introvert vibe. Which is unfortunate, because there are few things as anti-social as socialism and few things as conducive to a healthy society as individualism. I would have liked to change the labels and call socialism capitalism, since socialism has an unhealthy fixation on the central (ie not social) ownership of capital, whereas capitalism suggests that people interact freely and build society as they each and all want. The current labels of socialism (anti-social) and individualism (pro-society) are misleading. A company is a company of individuals freely cooperating. Government is only a company in the sense of being a company of robbers.

Stephen.

On May 21, 2024, at 01:51, Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com> wrote:

Petrus Potgieter raised this issue in another thread, which I thought deserved its own thread>

It is definitely worth thinking about companies. Why do firms actually exist at all? Why isn't all economic life just individuals trading with individuals? As quite nicely explained by Ronald Coase in the essay which got him a Nobel award many years later

https://tannutuva.org/2016/the-nature-of-the-firm/ "the firm is the anti-thesis of the market"

it is because of transaction costs – it is just too expensive (especially in time) to negotiate each and every thing so you constitute a firm which is, after all, basically a small socialist economy (with borders and other illiberal rules). This also takes care of the "socialism never works" fallacy BTW because every company and every family is a socialist economy. It just doesn't work on national level.

[Stephen vJ]

There is a difference between being told what to do and reading the instruction manual on that new appliance you bought.

The question is, is capitalism just a collusion between government and big pharma to control your life ? I say no.

Stephen.

On May 21, 2024, at 03:17, Gabri Rigotti <rigo...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAGXOEN2XLAzwvFnALWmGoU1EQPTXTOkSVDbLGiRHxncZSR-5tQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Trevor Watkins]

Excellent response Gabri. I am amazed by your ability to develop a treatise at short notice.

I like the idea of a calculus of freedom principles, and provide my own:

NoM = Nature of Man (Ayn Rand)

NoH = Nature of Humans (Gabri Rigotti)

NAP = Non aggression principle (US libertarians)

CA   = Consent Axiom (Trevor Watkins)

IMC = Individualist Movement Charter (Trevor Watkins)

HCR = Harm Consent Rule  (Trevor Watkins)

HWC = Harm with Consent (Gabri Rigotti)

=>      = implies

∈     = is a subset of

NoM => NoH

NAP CA IMC HCR HWC ∈ NoH

NAP CA IMC ∈ HCR

HCR = NoH + NAP + CA + IMC

HWC = NoH + NAP

I think your invention of HWC (Harm with Consent) is brilliant. It expresses a basic libertarian/individualist concept which is alluded to by phrases like C'est le Vie, That's life, the Tough Shit principle. You are entitled to choose HWC, at your own cost and discretion. It is the exact opposite of the precautionary principle, of wokeness, of safety above all else.

Trevor Watkins
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAGXOEN2XLAzwvFnALWmGoU1EQPTXTOkSVDbLGiRHxncZSR-5tQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Wow, I did not get all that from Gabri's post - thanks Trevor for elaborating. This is gold.

Two questions (for anyone);

- What about accidental harm or unavoidable harm or unquantifiable harm (acts of god, pollution, etc.) ?

- How does this apply to or relate to other species (intelligent aliens, livestock, bacteria, etc.) ?

S.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAN6K2Ln0%3Da8vfTaW-NZ3bD5bQZ3nKUaedfbHRUxmAetDauq5ng%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gabri Rigotti]

Am delighted this resonated with you Trevor  ... you must be a Set Theory and database appasionado too ... 😊

A calculus of freedom principles could provide a powerful base to both defend and promote libertarianism/individualism ... currently the attacks against libertarianism come in from many different angles, one especially as an example is "market failure".

Using a calculus of freedom principles, it could be shown through logical argument that genuine free markets would never fail as the other side of the coin that would be as you state it HWC = NoH + NAP would require compensating third parties who have not signed the ToS (terms of service) for damages.

This would thus bring about a self regulating phenomenon of service delivery based on demand but simultaneously, in its profit seeking, minimising liability for damages to third parties who have not signed the service delivery ToCs. 

Thereby negating the argument for government regulation of any instance of a free market, as the free market auto regulates any and every instance of itself.

I am stuck in the rut of my asbestos example of service delivery, which must be tiring, but it could be just about anything else too ... 😅

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAN6K2Ln0%3Da8vfTaW-NZ3bD5bQZ3nKUaedfbHRUxmAetDauq5ng%40mail.gmail.com.

[Petrus Potgieter]

1. You are correct about the force, of course, but I think the main difference between government and private companies, is that companies actually have beneficial owners. Unfortunately Cyril cannot accept a cash offer for RSA – and who would not want to sell? ;-) That is also a big difference between my complex body corporate (which otherwise acts a lot like a government) – in principle, one can actually buy the entire complex. I was once paid relatively handsomely to study state-owned enterprises and my conclusion from the whole exercise was really that there is no such thing because the state cannot effectively own anything because finally the benefits cannot be realised by well-defined beneficiaries. Most of the problems precede from that. In buying and selling transactions, the state acts like an owner but actually it is never a normal owner.

2. In practice, I think that big companies need the PTY LTD paperwork to exist – it would simply be too much effort to constantly renegotiate partnerships. The fact that companies are represented by individuals who yield the pen signing the agreements is important but it seperates the individual's role as representative of the company from their actual existence as individual. If you resign as CEO, you are basically instantly rid of any involvement. I am keeping an open mind on this issue but am glad to read that I might not be the only one to countenance the need for a CIPC database in a libertarian dispensation.

3. The Dutch East Indies Company (VOC) is an unfortunate example. It had a monopoly granted by the Dutch state (which it enforced against Dutch citizen in the Netherlands) and basically was empowered to act as the Dutch state in the orient (and here). It was really extremely tight with the state. See [Weststeijn, A. (2014). The VOC as a Company-State: Debating Seventeenth-Century Dutch Colonial Expansion. Itinerario, 38(01), 13–34. available on sci-hub.se] in this regard, note the criticism of Pieter de la Court (1618–85): "we will not sing the praises of the Company that has bound the hands of private traders and made war instead of trade" and other juicy quotes in the original 17th century Dutch about the "de quaedaerdigheijt van de compagnie".

It is true, as you point out, that there is nothing as asocial or antisocial as socialism!


Op 21-05-2024 om 06:37:13 -0600 skryf Stephen vJ sjaar...@gmail.com:

> [1]https://tannutuva.org/2016/the-nature-of-the-firm/ "the firm is the

> anti-thesis of the market"
> it is because of transaction costs – it is just too expensive
> (especially in time) to negotiate each and every thing so you
> constitute a firm which is, after all, basically a small socialist
> economy (with borders and other illiberal rules). This also takes care
> of the "socialism never works" fallacy BTW because every company and
> every family is a socialist economy. It just doesn't work on national
> level.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send

> an email to [2]libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> [3]https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/5097f400-a23e-465e-9b13-52ea
> 329af181n%40googlegroups.com.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send

> an email to [4]libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> [5]https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CCCFCBF4-AA90-45C8-9B53-B0CD
> 724FF1B5%40gmail.com.
>
> References
>
> 1. https://tannutuva.org/2016/the-nature-of-the-firm/
> 2. mailto:libsa+un...@googlegroups.com
> 3. https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/5097f400-a23e-465e...@googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> 4. mailto:libsa+un...@googlegroups.com
> 5. https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CCCFCBF4-AA90-45C8...@gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

[Erik Peers]

The Sectional Titles Act requires that for a residential complex to be sold for redevelopment there has to be 100% consensus amongst the owners.

Essentially the single owner of the tiniest flat has a veto on the sale of the property.

Theoretically if there was 100% buy in by SA voters to sell then SA could be sold. 

Practically though, ownership is so diverse as to make this implausible.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/Zk-S7jqvWOHb41k2%40adamastor.

[Petrus Potgieter]

Thank you for the clarification! So, the body corporate is in fact a government... Which makes me at least a grand prince but this realisation is not having the effect I would have hoped.


Op 23-05-2024 om 22:03:25 +0200 skryf Erik Peers erik...@gmail.com:

> The Sectional Titles Act requires that for a residential complex to be
> sold for redevelopment there has to be 100% consensus amongst the
> owners.
> Essentially the single owner of the tiniest flat has a veto on the sale
> of the property.
> Theoretically if there was 100% buy in by SA voters to sell then SA
> could be sold.
> Practically though, ownership is so diverse as to make this
> implausible.
>

> On Thu, 23 May 2024, 21:03 Petrus Potgieter, <[1]pet...@potgieter.org>

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

3. Most examples are unfortunate and that one was deliberately so.

S.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/Zk-S7jqvWOHb41k2%40adamastor.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

That's so stupid. Laws make things worse and that is a very good example. It is also the reason the Americans have "imminent domain" - essentially a fuck-you to private property.

Under most normal circumstances, private property is merely an observation of human behavior... It is so deeply ingrained in our make-up that it hardly requires any form of enforcement, process or persuasion... from people naturally forming lines and respecting other people's place in a queue to the general propensity to not scale someone else's fence - it just happens, because that's how we're built.

Where the real test of a society or political system comes in, is when that natural propensity to respect other people's property is threatened. People living in an HOA and voting on resolutions is nothing special, no more than people refraining from pulling someone else's wet clothes out of the machine at the laundromat. It is only when property is violated or threatened that we have an interesting situation.

It is when property is threatened by collectivism and group-think that things go wrong... or result in triumphs of private property like these:

  

Why on earth would you want 100% agreement and not let each person do their own thing ? Hoekom kan ek nie af stig nie ? Why would you want group-think and communal decision-making like that, when you can have actual property rights ? Why can you not have a Lesotho or iSwatini or Petrusburg or a Trevorstan inside South Africa ? Sies - stop being so collectivist man.

S.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAE3T5uMPV-B8aL7cTe%3Dp%2BUZr9AW4PpqFsyS8W%3DjWFXYE-4dWOg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Erik Peers]

Because each sectional title owner owns an undivided common share of the common property in the estate. As he owns it, it cannot be sold without his consent.

When he bought, he was entitled to the use of various facilities such as the common swimming pool etc He cannot be deprived of these without his consent.

Then there are Home Owners Associations who are the governing bodies of estates not built under the Sectional Titles Act. There is often no common property there.

When you buy and want to live in an estate you can choose which system you prefer.

Free choice. Nothing stupid about it. Sectional title is more popular. When people buy they have informed consent.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAMr06S74bW2o23b8WUAsC0neV9Vtwgp3W1d273WPe8mkdF09cQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen vJ]

Oh, I know how contracts work. You said; "The Sectional Titles Act requires that for a residential complex to be sold for redevelopment there has to be 100% consensus amongst the owners.". That's the law which I was saying is stupid. What I don't get is why government needs to tell home owners or associations of home owners what and what not to put into their private contracts. If I want to start an HOA where 18.4% is considered a majority or one where everyone must maintain a moat with sharks and crocodiles around their units, I should be able to do so. Where do the power-hungry thugs get off telling us how to band together ? Screw them.

Stephen.

On May 23, 2024, at 17:15, Erik Peers <erik...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAE3T5uOaV96N1SBkbH3s9P1qnd1Mi%3DJndD%3DNqw4pyOcAKxsA1Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Petrus Potgieter]

I absolutely do not believe that private property is "so deeply ingrained" in the human psyche. Only PERSONAL property is, which is (in my defition) whatever stuff you actually control physically and not with paperwork. My definition might coincide – I have not carefully checked – with Locke's notion of property in "the state of nature". There is nothing natural about me owning a piece of land near Bredasdorp which I have never seen – I am all for it, but it is the product of a specific socio-political arrangement. Not just the primitives but even imperial China had different notions of land ownership than we do, for example. Q.v. [Schurmann, H. F. (1956). Traditional Property Concepts in China. The Far Eastern Quarterly, 15(4), 507. doi:10.2307/2941921 ]:

'IT IS not wrong to say that the nature and intent of a society reveal themselves in the legal and customary concepts of property held by the various members and classes of that society. These property concepts do not change withoutan incipient or fundamental change in the nature of the society itself. The history of property relations in a given society is thus, in a way, the history of the society itself. In Western societies and in Japan, property relationsof a certain type developed which became one of the foundations of the system of socio-economic organization of society which we know as capitalism. The originof these property relations lies in the peculiar historical developmentof those societies, in particular,in the phenomenon of feudalism. Two basic characteristics of property relations in capitalist societies are: (1) maximal alienability of property, and (2) identification of property with the individual (an idea already inherent in the word "property" itself). The former we see as the product of an increasingly complex and dynamic economic development, and the latter as the product of a particular form of social organization, in which primogeniture played a large part.'

Since I do not mind being called a racist, I have no problem accepting BOTH that my (dear) notion of private property is in fact a highly culturally tinged one AND that it is a very good one. OK, the best.


Op 23-05-2024 om 16:44:13 -0600 skryf Stephen van Jaarsveldt sjaar...@gmail.com:

[Petrus Potgieter]

The "power-hungry thugs" (PHTs) are the ones who created the Sectional Title Act, which is very useful since it established a form of property ownership which people like. You want more forms of ownership, which is great, but as far as I can see that requires the PHTs to make even more laws. I really don't see any other way unless the concept of "convenant" (which is very well established in the US) has an equivalent in SA and can be used. In which case there is no problem – just use it.


Op 23-05-2024 om 19:46:55 -0600 skryf Stephen vJ sjaar...@gmail.com:

> image.png image.png image.png image.png

> Why on earth would you want 100% agreement and not let each person do
> their own thing ? Hoekom kan ek nie af stig nie ? Why would you want
> group-think and communal decision-making like that, when you can have
> actual property rights ? Why can you not have a Lesotho or iSwatini or
> Petrusburg or a Trevorstan inside South Africa ? Sies - stop being so
> collectivist man.
> S.
>

> Op Do. 23 Mei 2024 om 14:04 het Erik Peers <[2]erik...@gmail.com>

> geskryf:
>
> The Sectional Titles Act requires that for a residential complex to be
> sold for redevelopment there has to be 100% consensus amongst the
> owners.
> Essentially the single owner of the tiniest flat has a veto on the sale
> of the property.
> Theoretically if there was 100% buy in by SA voters to sell then SA
> could be sold.
> Practically though, ownership is so diverse as to make this
> implausible.
>

> On Thu, 23 May 2024, 21:03 Petrus Potgieter, <[3]pet...@potgieter.org>

> Expansion. Itinerario, 38(01), 13–34. available on [4]sci-hub.se] in

> this regard, note the criticism of Pieter de la Court (1618–85): "we
> will not sing the praises of the Company that has bound the hands of
> private traders and made war instead of trade" and other juicy
> quotes in the original 17th century Dutch about the "de
> quaedaerdigheijt van de compagnie".
> It is true, as you point out, that there is nothing as asocial or
> antisocial as socialism!
> Op 21-05-2024 om 06:37:13 -0600 skryf Stephen vJ

> [5]sjaar...@gmail.com:

> > On May 21, 2024, at 01:51, Trevor Watkins <[6]bas...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
> >
> > Petrus Potgieter raised this issue in another thread, which I
> thought
> > deserved its own thread>
> > It is definitely worth thinking about companies. Why do firms
> actually
> > exist at all? Why isn't all economic life just individuals
> trading with
> > individuals? As quite nicely explained by Ronald Coase in the
> essay
> > which got him a Nobel award many years later

> > [1][7]https://tannutuva.org/2016/the-nature-of-the-firm/ "the

> firm is the
> > anti-thesis of the market"
> > it is because of transaction costs – it is just too expensive
> > (especially in time) to negotiate each and every thing so you
> > constitute a firm which is, after all, basically a small
> socialist
> > economy (with borders and other illiberal rules). This also
> takes care
> > of the "socialism never works" fallacy BTW because every
> company and
> > every family is a socialist economy. It just doesn't work on
> national
> > level.
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google
> > Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
> it, send

> > an email to [2][8]libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> >

> [3][9]https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/5097f400-a23e-465e-9b1
> 3-52ea
> > 329af181n%[10]40googlegroups.com.

> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google
> > Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
> it, send

> > an email to [4][11]libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> >

> [5][12]https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CCCFCBF4-AA90-45C8-9B
> 53-B0CD
> > 724FF1B5%[13]40gmail.com.
> >
> > References
> >
> > 1. [14]https://tannutuva.org/2016/the-nature-of-the-firm/
> > 2. mailto:[15]libsa+un...@googlegroups.com
> > 3.
> [16]https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/5097f400-a23e-465e-9b13-
> 52ea32...@googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> > 4. mailto:[17]libsa+un...@googlegroups.com
> > 5.
> [18]https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CCCFCBF4-AA90-45C8-9B53-
> B0CD72...@gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

> send an email to [19]libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> [20]https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/Zk-S7jqvWOHb41k2%40adama
> stor.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

> send an email to [21]libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> [22]https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAE3T5uMPV-B8aL7cTe%3Dp%
> 2BUZr9AW4PpqFsyS8W%3DjWFXYE-4dWOg%40mail.gmail.com.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

> send an email to [23]libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> [24]https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAMr06S74bW2o23b8WUAsC0n
> eV9Vtwgp3W1d273WPe8mkdF09cQ%40mail.gmail.com.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send

> an email to [25]libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> [26]https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAE3T5uOaV96N1SBkbH3s9P1qnd
> 1Mi%3DJndD%3DNqw4pyOcAKxsA1Q%40mail.gmail.com.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send

> an email to [27]libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> [28]https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/5FD39E52-573E-4A4E-843C-48E
> 09C34EE86%40gmail.com.
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:sjaar...@gmail.com
> 2. mailto:erik...@gmail.com
> 3. mailto:pet...@potgieter.org
> 4. http://sci-hub.se/
> 5. mailto:sjaar...@gmail.com
> 6. mailto:bas...@gmail.com
> 7. https://tannutuva.org/2016/the-nature-of-the-firm/
> 8. mailto:libsa+un...@googlegroups.com
> 9. https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/5097f400-a23e-465e-9b13-52ea
> 10. http://40googlegroups.com/
> 11. mailto:libsa+un...@googlegroups.com
> 12. https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CCCFCBF4-AA90-45C8-9B53-B0CD
> 13. http://40gmail.com/
> 14. https://tannutuva.org/2016/the-nature-of-the-firm/
> 15. mailto:libsa+un...@googlegroups.com
> 16. https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/5097f400-a23e-465e...@googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> 17. mailto:libsa+un...@googlegroups.com
> 18. https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CCCFCBF4-AA90-45C8...@gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> 19. mailto:libsa+un...@googlegroups.com
> 20. https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/Zk-S7jqvWOHb41k2@adamastor
> 21. mailto:libsa+un...@googlegroups.com
> 22. https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAE3T5uMPV-B8aL7cTe=p+UZr9AW4PpqFsyS8W=jWFXYE...@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> 23. mailto:libsa+un...@googlegroups.com
> 24. https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAMr06S74bW2o23b8WUAsC0ne...@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> 25. mailto:libsa+un...@googlegroups.com
> 26. https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAE3T5uOaV96N1SBkbH3s9P1qnd1Mi=JndD=Nqw4pyO...@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> 27. mailto:libsa+un...@googlegroups.com
> 28. https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/5FD39E52-573E-4A4E...@gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer