RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Nader's Delusions

Friday
April 19, 2002

Nader's Delusions by Tibor R. Machan

Most of us have heard of Ralph Nader, the so-called consumer advocate and, by the lights of most Democrats, the spoiler of the 2000 presidential election. In fact, Nader spoiled nothing much, when the numbers are closely explored, but it is always convenient for the psyche to have on hand some scapegoat on whom to blame one's bad fortunes. The fact is, Al Gore just didn't cut it with enough folks to do what by all political estimates he should have done this time, namely walk away with the prize. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (4 messages)

Friday, September 28, 2012 - 6:03am

Prof. Machan conflates and confuses historical facts. Some of the claims are not facts. The English monarchy was different from continental monarchies. The "Cinderella" and "Sleeping Beauty" models of inheritance do not apply generally to England and specifically not to the UK at the time of the American Revolution. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, power was clearly with parliament which hired the king.

One king created the Church of England, true, but 100 years later, it was an institution of its own rights and powers and dictated to or negotiated with the parliament about who would be king. The Jacobin Restoration, and then the age of Charles II, followed by the choice of William of Orange were evidences of those interplays of power.

Moreover, the English Bill of Rights limited the power of the king and of parliament. In America, the revolutionaries sought only their rights as Englishmen.

Also, Al Gore lost because the election was rigged. Like the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy, we may never know who traded what to whom, but prima facie evidence just suggests that it was a close race that was tipped as in a third world nation: the winning votes came from the province where the brother of the winner was governor.

Ralph Nader is right: corporations are creations of the state. They are not private partnerships. We do not have a body of objective property law that applies to them, but rather, have fitted real estate law onto a frame of different size and shape. That was then. Now, we attempt the same thing with intellectual property. Nader might be wrong about very much, but not that. I do not think that corporations are evil by their nature, but given a constitutionally limited government based on rights, the laws regarding them can be whatever is moral. And we have 50 states as well as the federal government issuing such charters. It is a competitive situation, an example of shopping for laws.

Friday, September 28, 2012 - 1:28pm

I think it is Michael who is confused on the facts.

Regarding the 2000 presidential election, he wrote, "Al Gore lost because the election was rigged," claimed that Florida's vote count was fraudulent because Jeb Bush was Governor. That remains a very popular Democrat sour grapes kind of conspiracy theory, but there is no factual basis to it.
--------------------

Professor Machan makes the point that the American Revolutionaries brought about a system based upon personal sovereignty and individual rights - that it replaced being governed by a monarchy (with or without a parliament). Those facts are irrefutable and don't need for me to quote the Declaration of Independence. Michael is right that England was moving away from the earlier feudal model of a monarchy but that isn't germane to the article. Whether this or that particular act of tyranny falls more at the hands of a parliament in a monarchy, or from the monarch himself is not important to the argument the professor is making. We rebelled because we were not treated as sovereign individuals with rights.
---------------------

Michael stated, "In America, the revolutionaries sought only their rights as Englishmen." That is only true in the beginning, where the colonists wanted only their rights as Englishmen, but it changed over time, and they became revolutionaries who sought to break free of England completely. And in doing so, they created far greater freedoms than any Englishman enjoyed.
------------------------

Corporations are not creatures of the state any more than my home is a creature of the state because of the deed filed with the government, and no more than Michael and his wife are creatures of the state because of a marriage license. Corporations are voluntary associations of individuals as employees, investors, lenders, suppliers and customers. The corporate form is effected by government but primarily for tax purposes. The separation of shareholder ownership from legal liability doesn't make it a 'person.' Limited liability is really no different than if you loaned your neighbor $100 because he was between jobs and he promised to repay you with interest - the law, and the understanding between you and your neighbor would be that you would not be responsible for any debts he incurred or bad acts he engaged in.

If you examine the real haters of corporations, they nearly all are people who hate Capitalism in general, and are no friends to individual liberty.
-----------------------

Professor Machan's argument is for limiting government power so that individual can make their own decisions.

Friday, September 28, 2012 - 7:00pm

Steve, we are all patriots here. We all know the history of the American Revolution. That is why I found the Yankee Doodle Dandy presentation so unsatisfying. We all also are scholars. And we are philosophers in the Objectivist school. We can handle complexities. Prof. Machan's simplifications blew past significant facts.

I did not go into the fact that (off hand, I believe) nine of the 13 colonies began as corporations. By the time of the Revolution (again, if I have my facts straight), all of them except Connecticut had lost their charters and were crown colonies. (Connecticut refused to surrender its charter. The Charter Oak of Connecticut symbolically echoed king Charles I own hiding in an oak during the Civil War.) Unlike partnerships which were created by registration with any notary, corporations are created by authority: someone grants a charter. The grantor can be a bishop or a duke or a king. In Rome, it was the emperor who chartered fire departments and burial societies. Universities were similar self-governing societies only because - and specifically because - an authority granted them the status of a corporation - a collective entity that exists apart from its members. It is useful. It can be appropriate. It is certainly powerful and important. But corporations are, indeed, creatures of the state, not merely agglomerations of people who come together for a common purpose.

We confuse the words "tyrant" and "dictator." The office of dictator is a constutional one. The Declaration of Independence called King George III a "tyrant" to deny him his rightful status as king. They were not just calling him a nasty name.

It is true that the real American Revolution took place in the minds of the people from 1763 to 1775. But to jump from the French-Indian Wars to the Stamp Act to the Boston Tea Party to the Shot Heard 'Round the World to the Declaration of Independence is to condense the process and ignore the true meanings of the specific details.

The Yale University "Avalon Project" is a tremendous archive of original documents. (I also recommend highly the Online Library of Liberty.) From their presentation of the English Bill of Rights of 1689:

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;
By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament;
By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;
By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;
By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament;
...
And excessive fines have been imposed;
And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted;
...
That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
...
That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;
That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
...
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
...
the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster do resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be and be declared king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging... Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France and Ireland, and ...

Friday, September 28, 2012 - 8:14pm

Michael,

The business about corporations being chartered is way out of date. What you have today is registration. Your car is registered, if you buy house it is registered, if you get married, that is registered. The fact that the colonies were 'chartered' - which is not the same as today's corporations - has nothing to do with Professor Machan's article.
--------------------

People say that corporations are a separate legal entity as if that was some big deal - well, if you get a license for your for your bicycle or your dog they become separate legal entities.
-------------------

The far left thinks that corporations can violate rights. But we Objectivists know that individual rights are only violated by actions taken by an individual, whether the violator works for a corporation or not, and whether those working for a corporation are being directed to violate rights or not doesn't change that fact. It's all about individuals. All this crap about corporations is just anti-capitalist or ignorance.
-------------------

We should be worried about crony capitalism. Successful corporations generate a lot of money - that is part of what they are supposed to do. It is a great feature of a free market. If they use the money to buy political favors, that's a problem, but the problems aren't because the money is directed by a corporation because the same problem would exist if it was money directed by a single proprietor or partnership and the problem is with the government not being properly limited in their actions.

User ID Password or create a free account.