@breadandcircuses @mudbungie @arrrg

Why do you think the nations, by whose grace these corporations exist, don’t demand this of corporations?

@HeavenlyPossum @breadandcircuses @arrrg because general corporations are really easy for the state to administer, and in most cases are fine (someone wants to rent a place, hire two people, and sell bagels: this is fine and the public good is implicit). Obviously when it matters, the ship has already sailed, and wealthy companies are effective lobbyists. They also are deeply integrated into the lives of constituents, and requiring a restructure retrospectively is difficult.

There are reasons why the idea of a general for-profit company has been so dominant, but it is a legal construct, and the organ that administers the law is actually capable of managing that construct.

@mudbungie @breadandcircuses @arrrg

This is close but not quite there

> “someone wants to rent a place, hire two people, and sell bagels: this is fine and the public good is implicit”

Why is this fine and why is the public good implicit?

@breadandcircuses @mudbungie @arrrg

You misunderstand my question, which is not about the desirability of bagels or even about the provision of goods and services.

My question was about the desirability and “self-evidential” nature of the hierarchical firm. Let me break my question down into several sub-questions.

Why is it good or natural that some people own “places,” such that they can collect rents off the needs of other people to occupy space on the surface of our planet?

Why is it good or natural that some people own resources and others own only their labor, such that they have to sell their labor at the command of people who own resources?

Why is it good or natural that someone desiring to sell bagels, but needing the labor of others to sell those bagels, seeks out subordinate employees rather than equal partners?

Why is it good and natural that some people are in command, such that they can collect a share of the value produced by someone else’s labor, which they can then use to buy political as well as economic power?

@HeavenlyPossum @breadandcircuses @mudbungie @arrrg well , let me speculate here for a moment. Let's say that trump releases his minions on election day, who shoot every brown person attempting to vote.

So we have a successful coup, what do we do then?

More interestingly what happens if they move on to all politicians, billionaires, and cops. Now you've got an anarchy with a mob of armed yahoos running the show.

What now? What is the path anarchists want for utopia from there?

@denebeim @mudbungie @breadandcircuses @arrrg

This is a pretty wild tangent, but let me address two things:

> “Now you've got an anarchy with a mob of armed yahoos running the show.”

A group of people using violence to impose their will on a larger community isn’t anarchism; it’s the state. You’re confusing the seizure of state power for anarchy, which means roughly “the absence of rulers.”

> “What now? What is the path anarchists want for utopia from there?”

Anarchism is not utopian and I’m not aware of any anarchists who believe that utopia is achievable.