StrictlyLogical

Unions as such will not become "moot". However, the evil of current union-government cooperation (or any legislated economic force for that matter) of course will be banned once govt interference in the economy stops. Associations of professionals, employers, tradespeople, charities, and consumer groups, will probably be very important arrangements of common interests going forward agreeing to act, fail to act, or persuade, voluntarily agreeing to do so in unison. They will have economic impact, i.e. help shape demand, supply, prices, wages, etc. but they will not be able to initiate force or commit fraud.

Your position seems sensible although I did raise an eyebrow at "commit the business"... however I may be overly sensitive to language at this point in the discussion. "You and I" can be said to constitute a group but that group cannot be, have, or do anything independently of each of you and me. As such it has no independent existence, rights, responsibilities, and simply cannot perform any independent action.... you and me are two things not three things (you, me, and some mystical "us" which is somehow independent of each of us). "You" and "me" make "we" not "three". There is no "us" beyond "you" and "me". You and "me" makes "two", it's true, there is nothing else for a government to do.

Read up: "Despite not being human beings, corporations, as far as the law is concerned, are legal persons, and have many of the same rights and responsibilities as natural persons do. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[4][5] and they can themselves be responsible for human rights violations.[6] Corporations can be "dissolved" either by statutory operation, order of court, or voluntary action on the part of shareholders. Insolvency may result in a form of corporate failure, when creditors force the liquidation and dissolution of the corporation under court order,[7] but it most often results in a restructuring of corporate holdings. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offenses, such as fraud and manslaughter. However corporations are not considered living entities in the way that humans are.[8]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation Anyone care to provide arguments why this purported independent "legal personhood" of a corporation is not in contradiction to the principles of Objectivism?

While I like what you are saying I am unsure whether you believe a proper Objectivist government should (or would ever need to) "recognize" a corporate "entity" (rather than simply the individuals and the contracts between individuals) and "give derived status as a person standing in for" that "legally recognized" corporate entity. Keeping of course in mind that the concept "legally" according to Objectivism, and in the context of the proper role government, is probably more than "whatever a government decides to do".

Ok. Let me stand back a little and summarize. I see no reason whatever for a proper Objectivist government to treat any kind of group, collective, or organization of people AS anything other than what it is: a group of individual people which have various contractual agreements between them. Specifically, I see no principle, metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, or political (heretofore presented by anyone here) which would lead me to believe that a proper Objectivist government should (i.e. in the sense that it would be morally correct to) "view", "see", "consider", any group of inter-contracting individuals AS a separate "legal" entity, either in being or in action. In a proper system, society, economy, without oppressive regulations, without interference, with no laws other than those which are the proper subject of proper government i.e. the protection of individual rights, I see no reason why such a need would arise. Laws apply to human action, they are meant to prevent force, or to retaliate, act as restitution, or otherwise remedy the initiation of force, and to solve disputes between individual people. I ask: how is it any law would ever require reference to anything other than one or more individuals involved, i.e. require reference to some collective entity over and above the individuals?

HD: Since you ARE an absolute determinist, from electron, to shoes, to ceiling wax, and ship captains, you are in complete agreement with the idea consciousness is exactly commensurable with a clockwork because everything IS a clockwork to you? Correct? As for the Zombie of the original post, I can't help thinking that putting forth the "logical" possibility (whatever rationalistic or Kantian nonsense that is) of a Zombie so called "indistinguishable" from a person (impliedly physically) and yet not being conscious, proves physicality is false, is a perfect example of the fallacy of "begging the question". Perhaps I am missing something but I think the entire idea of "logical possibility" is likely the root error.

Bluecherry: Luckily we always have a steady supply of complex systems which exhibit consciousness which we can observe in terms of both structure and function so that one day we can unravel the puzzle of how, under what conditions, what structures, what arrangements and organizations of matter (and energy), what contexts are needed for consciousness... the problem is the need for the technology (as yet undeveloped) sufficient to observe it in enough detail and completeness...without harming a working version of the complex system.

In a just moral society a man would know he could purchase land with some effort, that he could work towards his dream of a primitive life, and if he deserved it through effort (earned it) he would be secure in knowing the fruit of his labour would be protected from force by a government which protected his rights. In the jungle, the true jungle where no society exists, where no government has been set up to protect individual rights, the effectively right-less man would have to possess the land by exercising force, never knowing if warring factions or his neighbor would try to wrest him from it. Here he would earn his survival by being personally ready to fight to maintain that survival, always being vigilant to invasion and theft... never having a moment of peace... paying for his patch of nature with the duty to pace its borders constantly. Is this beneficial to the well being of man?

Wrong. The law deals with joint ownership quite easily, with no need to conjure up an independent entity over and above the joint owners. If you and I own a boat jointly, you and I have rights in that boat. No one can steal the boat because that would be a violation of my individual rights to the boat and your individual rights to the boat. It is neither the case that 1. there is (or should be) some mystical third "YouAndI" person which comes into existence, whose rights would be violated, if someone tried to steal the boat, nor that 2. because we own it jointly there would be NO rights in the boat... and as you say "anyone could freely steal" it THIS is a false dichotomy. Rights are always ever possessed by individuals and they can bundle those rights to various things, actions, responsibilities etc. in many different ways. A proper government would not need a fictitious person, and better yet, because it would be Objective, it would not even SEE such a thing, it would only see the contracts and rights of individual people, and only to the extent Objectively valid and enforceable. You and I could not sign a contract to have a Chimp, a dog, a tree, a table, a piece of paper, or a floating concept, OWN our boat, and title VEST to the "transferee". Whether attempting to do so results in complete divestment of the boat or simply no change in a previous state of ownership would be a thing an Objectivist court would have to decide, but only individual people possess rights.

Hence the crux here jacassidy2 which I am debating with others in this thread, is the conceptual and legal treatment of a corporation as an independent person. Certainly there are complex systems which involve various different people, their rights, and their property, organized into action, and utilization to be a business concern providing services and goods etc. The mere fact that a complex system exists, or that that system exhibits amongst its constituents separation of ownership of resources etc. and their control, does not in any way change the metaphysical status of that complex system to magically transform it into an individual who has rights, can think and take responsibility, to which ethics, and justice applies, etc. A corporation is not a person, and government would have no reason to treat it as such. LP has this to say: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/corporations.html

In order to be able to choose a way of life, one first must be free. In a free society, no one is forcing you to use money. Money, if you choose to use it allows you more flexibility re. specialization, trading actual goods and services for a particular grocer would mean you would have to have exactly what he needs so that you could trade it for food... often you would simply go without food, or you would have to trade with someone else ... and a number of someone else's to ensure he gets what he wants and you eventually get your food. If you mean primitive to mean inflexible, inconvenient and ineffective, then money does stand in the way of a primitive life. But if you mean access to nature, choices to live on one's own terms... money is a tool that can only help an individual attain these goals. As for your comment about nature, insofar as nature is a value which individuals seek, it will exist. Private parks, private property, oases, billionaire multi-hectare wild gardens etc. will always exist and flourish to the extent they ARE a value to people, and people are FREE to choose to own, rent, share, etc. these values. How would "money" specifically prevent anyone in a truly free Objectivist society from being able to live in a primitive state if he chose to do so?

I agree. This glaring error (or false premise) of the hypothetical is ignoring what laissez-faire IS (or implying what it is not). The system of Laissez-faire is the opposite of a planned government dictated society, it is the opposite of force, it is hands-off, it is freedom from interference, and is the only moral system. Free men can always choose to live as primitive as they want within their means, but they can never force any other man to live primitively or "highly technologically" without violating rights of those other men. They must deal with other voluntarily. Furthermore, more technology does not mean fewer choices. Technology is a tool and any man who chooses to use any technology does so based on the risks and benefits, for which all have to be weighed: time, cost, space, weight, effort, psychological well being. If a clothes washer places such a psychological burden of anxiety on an individual to the extent that it would be better for him to simply hand wash his clothes... and if he cannot reasonably get over his psychosis with counseling, he may be stuck washing his clothes by hand. Essentially a highly technological context provides MORE choices INCLUDING the freedom to revert to older technology. Of course this does not imply one can force others to construct steam engines in today's world, but it leaves one free to build one if it is within his means.

Are you saying individual people, which happen to form a group each have rights to a share of something or that the "collective" or the "group" itself has rights... because these are two different concepts. Can you understand that these are two different concepts? Here is a primer on collective rights... http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/collective_rights.html

Are you joking? This is far more fundamental than the issue at hand. "Fictions" and "abstractions" possessing RIGHTS?

OK Nicky. Let me try to understand the "perfectly valid concept" of "legal personality". Premise 1: The proper and only role of government, is the protection of individual rights, in accordance with the non-initiation of force, and is limited to delegation of sovereign right to retaliation against force or fraud etc. Premise 2: Individual rights are neither subjective nor intrinsic but are Objective. Entities which are non-individuals - tables, trees, or ceiling wax, do not possess them, nor can they be "assigned" them. Furthermore, fictional entities and abstractions which are also non-individuals, cannot possess nor be assigned individual rights. Corollary 1 (to Premise 2): Individual rights, if they are and to the extent they are alienable, transferable or assignable, are only so (on a voluntary basis) only TO other individuals. Corollary 2 (to Premise 2): Individual rights, in every possible instance are always possessed ever only by individuals Conclusion: Government (proper objectivist laissez faire govt) only recognizes rights of individual people and acts only in protection of them. What is a "corporation" to the eyes of such a government? What would government recognize the corporation to be? (factually people have arranged themselves with contracts... some of which.. and some terms of which would be recognized and upheld while others would not be upheld... for example: if three people agree by contract to assign their rights to life and property to a table... the Objectivist government would not recognize the table as thereafter having those rights ... and would not recognize the three people's attempt to divest themselves of those rights as successful) What therefore is a valid concept of a "legal personality", (legal as in upheld by a proper government) which "personality" is not an individual?

Hmmm. Let's look at two numbers 2 and 10. If one could reasonably prove 10 is less than 2 would that mean one should always pursue 2 loaves of bread instead of 10?

True.

SN, careful, the second last point might be misleading to a novice. Philosophically rights cannot conflict with each other because they are, in the selfish pursuit of happiness (to paraphrase), freedoms "from" interference rather than rights TO anything or anyone, and hence exercise of one person's right can never be a violation of another person's right, and equally the violation of a second person's right is determinative in defining what the first person was exercising was not a right.

The key is to understand the difference between/among "intrinsic", "objective" and "subjective". Rights are neither intrinsic nor subjective, they are objective.

Thoughts anyone?

Thoughts any one?

"Housing" would be an over-reach for government. Irrespective of whether charity or family will succeed in providing housing of some sort, food, and comfort etc., the government's role would be oversight of security to protect individuals. Government should participate only to the extent required to protect individuals and their rights from the ill person. If the ill person is living with family, this may necessitate monitoring of the home, ankle bracelets, and depending upon the danger posed by the person and the pending agreement with the family, may require bars, strong locks, or security personnel. To the extent that the cost of having a person held at home exceeds that of a normal prison or an alternative the government normally used but for which the family has requested an alternative which can reasonably be shown to be just as effective, the family would be responsible for that extra funding. In a parallel manner If an ill person is kept in a government run facility, the government might pay for security and monitoring, bare subsistence, family and charity might pay for tasty and or expensive food, TV, decorations, larger living quarters, state of the art mattresses etc. If the ill person is actually homeless, this may pose an interesting problem for the government who would have to decide how best to spend its resources to ensure the protection of individual rights of the citizenry. This may include monitoring, a security guard, perhaps a shock collar, even if only as a temporary step while the government attempts to persuade (not force) charitable organizations to take initiative in generosity towards the individual, be it in the form of shelter, food, and/or care. In the worst case scenario as possibly with certain criminals, exile into an isolated or controlled geography might be an option, after it has been established that no one, no family, no charitable organization etc. wishes to voluntarily divest itself of resources to take care of this ill person. Government should be extremely careful not to exceed its proper function.

My point exactly. A corporation is as "real" (as an individual) as a collective is. A corporation cannot conceptualize, it cannot think, it cannot decide, ethics is irrelevant to it as it is not living, it cannot know or engage in any of the virtues, it cannot form nor is it coherent to subject it to moral judgment, justice, etc. A corporation cannot actually do anything an individual can do. Hence: 1. A corporation cannot "take responsibility", only people can. 2. A separation of ownership and control in a system or an organization, whether in a contraption or a machine or how you run your kitchen or your assembly line, is not the same thing as deciding to pretend the entity for which ownership and control are separate, IS a person for purposes of the law. I see no real reason to act as though, i.e. for a government to pretend that, a corporation is a person when clearly it is not, other than the unfortunate situation where there are a great deal of laws, regulations, and institutions for running the lives and economy of a ruled citizenry which may be undermined through literal inapplicability or complexity of enforcement... I.e. there is some degree of blind convenience by pretending corporations are persons under the law, and (as perhaps the sentiment of government may be) the ruled should not be able to escape necessary rule through complexity of association. If there is any conceptually rational and legitimate reason for "personhood" of an organization with separation of control and ownership I would be interested to know, particularly in the context of an unregulated truly free Objectivist society (with minimal government, 3 branches, etc.).

Would an Objectivist government recognize a contract signed by a purported corporate person rather than a group (any group of people or single person) being signatories and bearing responsibility?

I cant tell SN, are you advocating that the regulation of fully legal markets by an Objectivist government would be proper?