I would argue corporations as we know them are creations of the State, and this goes back to the likes of the East India Company. A business license should not be required to open a shop, but that is the system the government has imposed, not something people sought. In today's litigious society, I understand structures to limit personal liability. Neither of these create any obligation to submit to arbitrary extortion. But if you're begging the government for special privileges and protections through their legal corporate structure process, you've made a deal with the devil, so pay your dues. That kind of mindset is necessary before we approach anything like "fair" extortion in society.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
They definitely are. the state as we know it, like monarchies and religions, are not great at doing much, but I tend to think that at the scale of humanity now, some organisation is required if we are to tackle larger problems. Sure, some of the larger problems are caused by the organisation itself, but I think it is the way we are organised, not that there is organisation.
I am no fan of tax, but I also don't see it suddenly disappearing (without apocalyptic events) so if it is to change, it will happen incrementally. If we can get incrementally worse, we can also get incrementally better.
I think there's a huge non sequitur when one argues that because society requires organization for some purposes, we need a government to act as a territorial monopoly. That is what we have now, but not because it was the result of prior generations applying reason. It is the result of past generations waging war to conquer their neighbors or throw off prior conquerors. That isn't a foundation for progress or a measure of legitimacy, not even when it has a veneer of democracy.