Comment by samatman
2 years ago
This supposes that there's some naturally-right size for a corporation to be, without bothering to argue why that might be.
I don't see why that would be true, and abundant evidence that both large and small corporations add value to the world.
This supposes that there's some naturally-right size for a corporation to be
No, in fact, it doesn't. Please re-read the comment you're replying to.
There is no cutoff, limit, or threshhold. It doesn't prescribe a naturally-right size any more than a graduated income tax "prescribes a naturally-right amount of income".
Is a 'cap' not a 'cutoff, limit, or threshold'?
Please read the comment again; you have not understood it.
No cap is proposed.
2 replies →
Yes, in fact, it does. The objection just flies directly into the blindspot which leads you to make the proposal in the first place, which produces cognitive dissonance. You postulate, incorrectly, that "too large" is a coherent concept for corporations, and propose to "fix" your imaginary problem by punishing people who grow corporations larger than your imagined ideal.
Just want to highlight that the way you phrased it, someone doing 99% harm and providing 1% value can be said to be providing value.
I consider it a trivial lemma of the concepts of harm and value, that something which is causing more harm than they are creating value, is producing net negative value.
Although you gave me an opportunity to clarify that, which isn't nothing, I suppose.