Gil Hamilton wrote:
> You seem to be saying that there's nothing wrong with simply defining away
> the rights of the owners by changing the legal fine print that establishes
> the government's treatment of the corporation.
yes, that is what I'm saying. see, by putting your money into a
corporation, you also put it into trust in your government. the local
legal system provides the ground rules for your transaction. it can
change them. you do NOT have a natural right that says the rules may not
change.
> But it's Wrong, and Evil, and over time inevitably leads to a government
> that encompasses more and more of daily life, and regulates more and more,
> and recognizes the rights of individuals less and less. The laws pile up
> higher and higher, and each year at an increasing rate. And everyone,
> especially cypherpunks, should fight it tooth and nail.
while I agree completely that we don't really need a metric ton of
lawbooks to be happy (or free, or whatever), I don't see that this
follows from what I'm saying.
let's say we just do away with corporations. we declare them as
nonexistent, as far as the law is concerned, and throw away 300 kg of
tax-, corporate-, business- and other related laws. how exactly does
this lead to an overregulatory government?
