Are some free trade restrictions necessary?
Regarding your description of free trade vs. state corporatism at your website, How can we prevent the propagation of Multinational corporations without resorting to government regulation? Is that form of Government regulation a necessary evil, or is there a method for preventing the formation of huge multinationals and monopolies without the government restricting free trade? If so, how would this method be implemented?
Michael Badnarik:
"Free trade," like any other term, is often coopted to mean something other than what it should. In the context of modern America and the globalization phenomenon, it is often used to refer to a web of regulations, restrictions, subsidies, government-created monopolies and privileges. That's not free trade.
First, let's look at the nature of corporations. They come into existence with the grant of a government charter. They sell stock under the auspices and pursuant to the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission. In court, they are treated as "persons" with "rights" -- and for purposes of liability, their stockholders are held harmless beyond the value of their stock itself.
A market in which single proprietorships and partnerships must compete against what are essentially mini-branches of government, with all the attendant privileges and immunities, isn't a free market. It's a rigged game.
I don't oppose growth or success. I support unrestricted trade across international borders, and I support companies developing themselves internationally. But the fact is that corporate growth today isn't natural market growth. It's growth encouraged and enhanced by government-dispensed privilege. It's artificial, and it distorts rather than serves the market.
We need to restore justice to the system. Stockholders are owners, and should be liable for the consequences of that ownership like any other owners. I have no doubt that the market will come up with "portfolio insurance" to protect the stockholders from ruinous claims, but that in itself will provide a market check on unrestrained, unaccountable growth -- companies which act irresponsibly will find that their stockholders can't buy, or have to pay unreasonably high, insurance premiums, and therefore aren't interested in having the stock.
Corporations don't have rights and don't face consequences. People do. Tinkering with that has been disastrous. It's time to get back to full responsibility for individuals instead of government privilege for corporations.
-----------------------
personally, I think most things come back to the fact the government doesn't have the right to take my money for anything other than what the constitution says it needs it for - essentially only protecting my rights from others. When the government statrs disrespecting my property as well, I see that as a problem.
Now, personally, I recognize that this raises some issues, such as those brought up. To be honest, I, personally, have not had the chance to think through any reasonable solutions on this. The fact is though, I think solutions need to be sought outside of taking my money. As an example above, Michael Badnarik talks about a system structured where people can no longer hide behind corporations (that corporations are recognized as people is one of the tragedies of our world today IMO). Likewise, stockholders are then treated as people who literally own stock in the company: they are part owners and also responsible for the company. Solutions need to be sought outside of more government control, As the quote in my sig says:
"Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I'll be honest and say I don't know all the answers. Hell, I'm a 22 year old college student - what do you expect?
But I do know that the answer doesn't lie in more government control and it doesn't lie in more money being taken from me for that government control.