But then with respect to coporations contracts are themselves often between what are persons only qua legal fictions, or between them and individuals rather than anything that could be explained in terms of contracts between individual persons. I have no idea what you mean when you say that a legal fiction is an oxymoron. Surely the point of the term is that corporations are not persons as you and I are persons. Even Bush would not consider a union of Mary Kay and Revlon cosmetics some sort of lesbian marriage. Well I cant be sure of that! I took Eugene to be concerned about the extent to which David was identifying the essential nature of the corporation with some set of interlocking contracts between individuals. But surely over and above any such set of interlocking contracts there are also sets of contracts between individuals and the corporation and between the corporation and other corporate entities that are essential to understanding the nature of the corporation and its obligations and rights.
Cheers, Ken Hanly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eubulides" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 7:37 PM Subject: Re: Corporations > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eugene Coyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > This interlocking series of contracts has the right of free speech? > > I think the series of responses Shemano gives in this thread is sillier > than neo-classical micro. He describes a total phantasy world, just as > the micro theorists do. But the world both try to hide is terribly real. > > This stuff is much worse than people have been asked to leave the list > over. Disgusting stuff. I'd say beneath contempt, but I don't know > what is lower. > > Gene Coyle > > > ======================= > > I'd say the legal world he describes is all too real and we must learn to > think about it a lot harder than we've done. Contractarianism is very > powerful ideology; contract law is the performative core of capitalism. > > Legal fiction is an oxymoron. > > Ian
