Thursday, 15 July 2010

Dear Rightards, being free does not mean giving free reign to mega national companies!

I hate the terms right and left. These terms are imaginary, lazy, media constructed and helpful to clueless moronic reporters to package complex problems only. Generally Libertarians rant about how bad conservatives are (and for proof of this see conservative states, i.e. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) then shout oh but apart from that we are on the right because against all evidence to the contrary, conservatives have something to do with freedom, even if it is convenient economic freedom rather than any notion of personal freedom, oh an also because we hate communists and socialists and all those people who put labour in their party names even more, cause our dad had to fill in a form once despite being a small business man (and really to be fair who wants to be born in China or North Korea).

It is an utter nonsense, and is helpful to nobody but vested political interests in various parties, to define politics on a scale essentially of how much tax your chosen affiliation traditionally draws in. You end up with nothing but partisan idiots who vote on a sort of football team loyalty mentality instead of considering who will make things the least bad.
Now that said, there is a depressing, mad raving, ‘we’re hard right’ libertarian streak that goes frothing fcuking mental at the though of a private citizen not taking responsibility for themselves but in the same breath rants and raves about corporate interests being given free reign and little or even no regulation because it is economically convenient to compromise their principles of responsibility when it comes to economic growth.
Historically the advent of the limited liability corporation was staunchly opposed and it should be viewed with considerable unease. The entire point of company law is to allow a businessman to set up a fake fall guy ‘probably called Businessman Limited’ who takes the fall when things go wrong. Creditors get dumped, employees get dumped, liabilities vanish. The Businessman walks away to do the same horrific scam again (Salomon v Salomon is good case to refresh at this point) This encourages a bit of innovation and risk taking and protects investors or entrepreneurs from massive personal loss.
I completely agree that a sole trader or a partnership, who have their own necks on the line should anything go wrong, should be almost completely exempt from. There is considerable pressure and consequence for such individuals to make sure things go right, their employees don't do anything stupid and their contracts are met because if they go wrong the business man is personally liable and looking at bankruptcy.
For a company to be subject to next to no regulation is ridiculous. Sure, we'll get a boom and a lot of people will have some extra cash in their back pockets as corporates free of red tape flourish but we'll also get a horrible bust, when something goes wrong and the guiding intelligence behind a raft of companies, with disinterested managers secure in their indemnity insurance and limited liability and 6 years of $$$s, simply walk away without consequence.
We can't get rid of companies and company law, nor would it be desirable to do so, it would be economic Armageddon and they are useful vehicles. But these things require tough and stringent regulation far in excess of the plucky sole trader or partnership. To suggest otherwise while applying the mantra that the private citizen must be responsible for any and all actions creates a logical divide and turns ordinary private citizens away from the argument that people should repatriate their freedoms from central and local government.

No comments:

Post a Comment