[jrmurad]

"un-construct it... drag it out behind the shed and shoot it."

Can you "un-construct" this newspeak for us? It sounds like you're advocating that you or some other force besides free and voluntary trade should literally shut down private businesses, possibly beating and robbing their owners in the process (as has been done historically)?

Because there's some formula for determining "social value" which has "number of employees" as a factor?

[jjoonathan]

> It sounds like you're advocating ... literally shut down private businesses, possibly beating and robbing their owners in the process

No, that's what happens in the scenario where we make workers redundant and fail to provide some alternative social contract.

> Because there's some formula for determining "social value" which has "number of employees" as a factor?

Value of Social Contract = (cost of what you have to sell)/(cost of what you need), aggregate over members of the social group in question.

Markets ruthlessly optimize both the numerator and denominator. So far, the scales have tipped in a direction that benefits most members of our society because there has been plenty of (relatively) valuable work to do. That may be changing. A decreasing numerator can be worse than an increasing (or shrinking-but-too-slowly) denominator. Even in aggregate. The market doesn't really have an innate preference for one direction or another.

It's up to us to fix the problem if the winds shift. If we don't, someone else will, and it will get very messy.

[CJefferson]

Huge amounts of modern businesses aren't about "free and voluntary trade".

While I'm not saying we should, we could (for example) get rid of limited liability or the massively different tax arrangements for individuals and businesses (which usually greatly favour businesses over individuals). These are social constructs, and we could decide that they are no longer benefitting society.

[JulianMorrison]

Humanity, a sufficient majority thereof, simply stops playing the game. Money was a concept. It is now ignored. Corporations were a concept. They are no longer believed in. Ownership is a bouncing cheque with nobody caring to cash it. Most people stop playing "private business". You owned a railway? It's been automated. You owned a steel foundry? It's been automated. It answers to the world direct democracy, not to you. It's busy making things for free. And everyone else is busy doing their vocations. If you wanna go hide in a valley, sell things to each other and hope for civilization to vanish, go right ahead.

[dinkumthinkum]

What you're saying doesn't make sense. Again, your position ignores scarcity and act as if economics is something like a "big bad boogey man" cooked up or something weird like that.

The steel foundry example is interesting. Does it have an infinite amount of raw materials? Is it utilizing a perpetual energy machine?

To me this like if the professor asks the class "where does the electricity in your class come from?" and the students respond "The socket!"

[maxerickson]

"Where does ownership come from class?"

"The socket!"

Of course that is silly, but sweat of the brow gets a little hypothetical when you start talking about piling up billions of dollars (probably even less than that). Should we pay the people that are rich today a larger share of the benefits of automation out of nothing more than a commitment to tradition?

[jrmurad]

You earlier referred to Business as a potential "parasite". Sounds like you are clarifying that you hope such a parasite will starve and wither away. Which is fine. Others might advocate taking proactive and violent measures to kill something which they deem to be parasitic.

[Frondo]

I'm quite sure the "un-construction" he's talking about takes the lines of, say, revoking a business license.

I have no idea why you imagined it would involve beating and robbing anyone.

[patrickaljord]

> I have no idea why you imagined it would involve beating and robbing anyone.

How do you think government would enforce that "revoking a business license" thing?

[rtpg]

The same way the government goes about most things: asking , then telling, then forcing you to.

I mean governments also revoke driving licenses all the time, I don't think it always devolves to beatings

[Natsu]

That depends largely on how long you stay in jail or prison, though.

[nomat]

They would just revoke it because they are the issuers of the license in the first place. You can't take something that you already own from yourself by force.

[jrmurad]

You're not taking into account that this "Issuer" claims some right to decide (by force, obviously) who can do business in the first place.

So if some entrepreneurial lady begins, say, arranging flowers or braiding hair... maybe she gets forced out of business for not having a license. Or maybe she does get a license but it is revoked for some arbitrary reason like the Issuer decides she's a "parasite" because she doesn't employ "enough" people. Either way, force is being used against her.

[ZeroGravitas]

So wait, what if some nice lady decides to set herself up as an issuer of professional licenses. Do you want her put out of a job. Are you calling her a parasite? Are you going to beat her up if she doesn't meekly do what you tell her to do, which is clearly against her own self-interest? Why must all anarchist libertarianism devolve so quickly into bloody, revolutionary violence against individuals! Won't someone think of the children!

Do we really need every thread that even tangentially mentions government on HN to devolve into this same childish nonsense?

[patrickaljord]

> So wait, what if some nice lady decides to set herself up as an issuer of professional licenses. Do you want her put out of a job. Are you calling her a parasite?

She'd only be a parasite if she claimed a monopoly on her license and threatened any alternative with violence and imprisonment.

[patrickaljord]

What if I still want to exercise my business without a license? How would they enforce it? Hint: see what happens to abortion practitioners in countries where abortion is illegal or marijuana resellers where it's illegal etc.

[Frondo]

The idea that business activity can be regulated or controlled by a state governing body is not new, is not controversial, and is also not robbery.

[patrickaljord]

It isn't robbery as defined by the law like the death penalty isn't murder either legally. From a philosophical point of view though, opinions defer. Not saying I agree or not, just saying.

[true_religion]

Most businesses don't require a license to operate unless they deal with controlled goods like tobacco, alcohol, pharmaceuticals, or the exploitation of natural resources.

Beyond that, what the government provides is the articles of incorporation to limit the liability of investors, and allow the owners and operators of the business to act as a single entity within the court system.

If we take away the articles of incorporation, the business can still operate but it's not shielded in anyway from being cut up piecemeal via lawsuits, and a lot of the reason people find it worthwhile to invest in or work for a corporation will be removed.

[Natsu]

Where do you live?

That's simply not true here, where any business which has to collect sales tax (i.e. nearly everyone) needs a "Transaction Privilege Tax" license.

[golergka]

> I have no idea why you imagined it would involve beating and robbing anyone.

Reading history books gives you strange ideas.

[knughit]

He history books that are full of strikebreakers and company stores beating and robbing employees?