Now that I have briefly explained how we can create a right to own land and stay within the confines of Natural Law (you can read it here), I suppose I should also address the issue of corporations. As with my first post on a right to own land, this post is a general outline. It is intended to give the idea and not cover every possible aspect of this subject. And as with land ownership, it starts with the Natural Right to Contract.

Now, if society wants to create corporations, I see no reason it cannot do so, but there are many more things that need to be addressed in the process than with creating a legislative act allowing people to claim ownership (i.e. exclusive use rights) of land. By its very nature, a corporation is an artificial entity: a created fiction that acts and is treated like an individual. At the same time, the creation of a corporation inherently includes – because it must – a notion of ownership by a real person or persons. This relationship is wrought with peril, as our modern system of corporations has clearly demonstrated. To create a corporation and stay within the boundaries of Natural Law, it requires great care and careful diligence to maintain. The founders managed it by issuing charters.

A charter functions like a corporation. It creates a corporation that can be owned and operated like a private business, but the government retains ultimate control of the corporation formed by the charter. Charters usually have limited life times, after which they must be renewed or they automatically dissolve. Charter companies were usually intended for public works. In return for accepting the restrictions associated with a charter, the owners were allowed to make a certain profit, but they were still held accountable. This is why, no matter how many shares an individual may have owned in the charter company, every share holder had an equal vote in the operations of the charter. As you can see, such an arrangement is tightly controlled and, in our modern times, would be resisted by the corporate elite within our society.

The primary complaints would be three-fold. First, people will argue that there is no private ownership in a charter company. This is true, but that is because a corporation is a public creation. It can only exist after the people pass a law to create it, and can only survive if it has the continued support of the people. This is why there can be no ‘property right’ in a corporation; only a right in the ability to operate a corporation. What we do not want to accept but must because it is inherent in the definition of ‘corporation’ is that a corporation is a legally created thing. It comes into being as a social act, and therefore, it remains under the ultimate authority of society, without whose support, the corporation ceases to exist. It is impossible to have private ownership in something that exists only in the public realm. At best, you can be granted the civil right to exclusive control of such a creation. For those who understand Scripture, this is derived from the principle of stewardship.

The second objection is that modern business requires huge organizations, and that it is impossible to raise the necessary sums of capital outside the corporate structure. Well, technically speaking, this is not true. Before the rise of the modern corporation, people used co-ops. Co-ops are autonomous entities formed by voluntary association. Farmers’ co-ops may come to mind. An example of how a co-op could work in our modern world, let’s look at the cell phone industry. Suppose there are hundreds of cell phone companies, and they all operate in small regions of the nation. Now suppose we want to build a national tower network so each regional company can operate as though it were national. The way we do it today, we create a few huge corporations and they consolidate everything: control, plans, profits, etc. But a co-op would consist of a hundred different owners who all contribute cash to build the national tower network, and in the process, they all share a claim to the use of that network. Yes, there will be details to be worked out there, but this is no different from any other contractual matter. The point here is that the capital can be raised without having to use corporations. In this example, every small company could be privately owned and operated, yet the same sort of national system we know today will still exist – only it will be in accordance with Natural Law.

There is an added benefit to co-ops: they actually strengthen the economy. Whereas the system we use now allows people to buy stock in a company, stocks are volatile and do not really represent true ownership of a corporation. In a sense, you are just buying the right to gamble on the company, which is little different from the objections that Natural Rights corporations do not allow for private ownership as mentioned above — but we will not get into this at the moment. The point here is, there is real ownership in co-ops. This then leads to a stronger middle class as, instead of concentrating the profits from the cell phone industry; they are distributed among the hundred or more owners who, depending upon their personal beliefs, may actually provide for better wages than the major corporations. Contrary to what the media likes to tell us, small businesses do tend to pay their people as well as they can – often better than corporate America.

The final objection will most likely be associated with the assertion that corporations are also formed by the Natural Right to contract. The problem with this objection is that it is not true. What ‘contract’ are you entering into when you buy stock in GM? What you are really doing is gambling, nothing more. If you had bought part of the company, then you could enter any of its facilities and use any of its assets as though you were the owner. Go try that sometime and see what happens. In truth, the modern corporation is little different from the government. The government gives you the ‘right’ to pay taxes and hope that you get some value in whatever return the government delivers. The corporation is the same way: you give them money and hope you get a return you value. Yes, there are differences, I am well aware of this. But the point is that both are socialized in nature.

You have to learn to look past the personal and particular of any given issue and look to the principle, the form and function. Once you can do that, you will see what I am trying to explain. And once you see it, you will understand how and why we are in such trouble. You will also understand that we will not extract ourselves from this trouble unless we return to the principles of Natural law.

OK, now that I have tried to explain what is wrong with the way we have been doing things and why, I suppose it’s time I offer a few thoughts on how we can achieve what we want and still stay inside the limits of Natural Law. It starts with the Right to Contract.

If society decides it wants to create a right o own land, it can do so. There is nothing in Natural Law that prohibits doing this – so long as the primary boundaries are observed (maintain personal accountability for your property; can’t hurt people; can’t take the property they do have a Natural Right to; can’t give away or demand the Natural Rights of others; etc).  Society does this by passing a law establishing the terms under which land can be claimed as personal property. However, there is an important point that we need to understand.  Society cannot assume the seat of the Creator in this process.  In other words, society cannot create a Natural Right simply by passing a law.  So, essentially, what society is doing is not creating a ‘right’ to own land as personal property, but creating a legally recognized and protected right to control the use of that land.  We simply make the mistake of thinking of this sort of right the same way as we think of a right to own our clothes, and this is where we go off the rails: in keeping our understandings clearly defined.  The key here is to remember that this is not a Natural Right to own property. It is a civil right. We need to know the difference.

Once this right to control the use of land is established, Society also creates a duty to the land owner.  So long as a private citizen does not violate the law establishing this land right, Society has a duty to treat whatever property they own as personal property – just as if it were the type of property to which a person can claim a Natural Right (i.e. moveable property created through their labor). This is the source of our confusion as mentioned above: because we treat something as something contrary to its actual nature, we tend to start thinking that our mistake actually is part of its nature.  In other words, because we treat Society and the government as a single creature or entity, we tend to think of them in these terms when there is nothing ‘individual’ about there nature.  The key to preventing these confusions is to actually be educated; to know and understand the differences that our modern society dismiss as ‘trivial.’  They are hardly trivial; they are the primary source of the majority of our ruin.

Now, having said all this, there are two things we need to understand and avoid:

Creating a civil right that separates ownership from personal responsibility.

This can and does include corporations. Suppose I own a car and I intentionally drive it into a store, killing three people. According to Natural law, at the very least, I should be charged with manslaughter, if not murder. However, suppose society has created a civil right to personhood for cars. Now I can claim that I am innocent: the car is guilty. What is left to the victims now but to fine the car? After all, a car cannot be put in jail, so fining the car is all the victims can do.

Personhood in artificial entities.

This illustration is not as absurd as it may appear, but it isn’t complete, either. Instead of a car, pretend it’s a company that makes cars; and instead of intentionally driving it into a store, suppose I make a deliberate decision that leads to the deaths of thirteen people. Again, no person goes to jail and when the company gets fined, the government takes the money. But more than that, since it is a company, the fine just gets added to the cost of the cars it sells, passing the cost of the company’s liability to the customers. And what if one of the people the company killed then buys one of the company’s cars? Now the company has charged the victim for the company’s crime and still no actual people have been held accountable.

Now let me ask you a question. Did you see how easily you accepted the intentional switch from talking about me driving a car (i.e. company) to talking about the company as though it actually were a person? That is what happens when we create artificial entities and start treating them as though they are people. In the full illustration, Natural Law is violated at nearly every turn, and the victims get no justice at all. No society built this way can or will survive.
But suppose I live in a society where the civil law confines land ownership to the same laws as moveable property. Now it will not matter whether I drive my car into a store or deliberately decide to do something I know will cost lives. I am personally accountable and I go to jail. Furthermore, my assets (my car or company) can be sold to pay the victims, as well as any other assets I may own. This is how property rights in land work under Natural Law.

One last thing: if you just felt yourself wanting to object to the possibility of going to jail and losing your stuff because of something you did, then you need to understand that you are on the wrong side of right on this issue. You naturally seek to avoid responsibility while clinging to your advantage. When people do that, they become an enemy to the very society that allows them to own land, or other civil creations.

You see, the problem isn’t that we can’t create a civil right to own land; it’s that people will always want to pervert the law so they can enjoy the advantages that come with such rights while avoiding any of the responsibilities that accompany them. It’s that simple.

[NOTE: my example of the car company should be familiar to those who pay attention to the news.  It is what is happening with GM and their recent recall where the people responsible are ‘heading for new interests’ that have ‘nothing to do with blame’ but they will no longer be with GM.  This case is exactly what happens when the principles of Natural Law are ignored for the benefit of the elite/privileged.]

The latest in my series of historical evidence demonstrating the founders had no intention of constructing a secular government:

In the Founders’ Words: the Essential Role of Religion in Public and Civic Life

I know I have written on this a great deal the last few months, but it seems that those who most need to learn the lessons I am trying to explain are also the most resistant to their Truth. This time, I am going to try to explain it from a different direction.

First, let me address those who have been referring to me as a Marxist because I have turned on the idea of a ‘Natural’ Right to own something that was created by man. I think Marx would find it odd that you are forcing me onto his ideological camp when I actually support the individual’s NATURAL RIGHT to own, operate and control the means of production. Marx was against this, so I know that he – as the highest authority of the ideology he created – would tell you who now call me a Marxist that you are wrong.

This then means that you are doing so for the purpose of tainting me in the eyes of my readers. If so, that would mean you are making an ad hominem attack: something that many of you who once called me an ally when I still believed the fiction you continue to support used to cry about ‘Liberals’ doing to you and your supporters. And you wonder why I have come to see you as the flip side of the same coin as the ‘Liberals’ you oppose? It is because you are no different. And the fact that you have not addressed my argument but only accused me of being a Marxist and of ‘switching sides’ only serves to solidify the likelihood that this is exactly what you are doing: trying to defeat my argument by calling me names. Well, don’t bother. The Left is far more vicious and I have shrugged off every name-calling fit they ever launched in my direction. I seriously doubt your will even compare.

Now, let’s look at what I am actually saying – and not what my enemies on both sides want you to believe I am saying. We have a Natural Right to make a living. If this means we have to make hoes, then we have a right to the materials and tools we use to make hoes. We have a right to anything into which we impart our labor and which is used to sustain our lives. But I have yet to see a corporation laying around in the jungle. Nor have I ever seen the argument that successfully demonstrates how we are born with land attached to our free will or body. This is because the right to ownership in both land and a corporation are the product of government.

Now, if we read Bastiat, or any of the founders – all of whom are quoted by the very people now calling me a Marxist – we find that government is created to protect our rights. But this leaves us with a problem. How can we be born with a Natural Right to something if that something must first be created by something else that is itself created? Confused? Well, if you are, you should be – because it is as easy to follow as the distorted reasoning which arrives at the conclusion we can claim a birth right – simply by being human – to own something that has to be created by something else that we have to create. In short: your right to own land or a corporation rests upon a double fiction, yet these people still want to call that ‘natural.’ I wonder, do these people also believe that witches and warlocks are also ‘naturally occurring’ entities? Because this is the sort of thing one must believe to assert a Natural Right to something twice created by man – after man is himself created.

Still, I do not have a problem with a CIVIL right to own land or a corporation. I have said this the whole time, but my enemies dare not admit it or it will destroy them. After all, how can one call me a Marxist if I am saying I have no issue with the CIVIL right to own land and corporations? Surely they wouldn’t be so foolish. That’s why they do not admit that I have ever asserted the right to create these CIVIL rights.

However, what I object to is the attempt to make these CIVIL rights and then – after they have been acquired – to argue they are now NATURAL RIGHTS and that the very people who created them no longer have any say over them. That is not only a perversion of the law; it is an attempt to claim the seat of God. Only God can create something from nothing, and that is what the people who argue that they have a ‘Natural Right’ to own land and corporations are doing. They are trying to use society to pass laws giving them the CIVIL right to own these things and then, after they have acquired them, to simply assert by their word and will alone that these CIVIL rights are now Natural Rights. This is both an absurdity and an usurpation and it should never be allowed.

At its heart, what this is about is power. The people claiming these ‘rights’ want to take something society has created and then claim society has no right to control it. They also want to use these CIVIL rights to excuse themselves from any responsibility for them. This is an abomination piled upon an abomination and it is the core of my objection. When someone claims the right of ownership yet rejects any personal responsibility for that which they claim to own, they have declared themselves to be an enemy of society – period. And so I say to my former allies: either re-examine the ground upon which you stand, or deal with the just attacks upon you and accept that you are guilty as charged. You are enemies of society – just as Jefferson and Franklin said you are.

Whatever you do, don’t miss this post.  The title is true, and the evidence is in the historical records.  I have presented just a fraction of it in this post:

The First Amendment was Originally Intended to Protect ALL Denominations of Christianity