Should private foundations exist in an Objectivist society?
I notice that many of the donors listed in this article are described as "private foundations". However, as far as I can see, the money and other assets of these foundations are not private property as Objectivists would define that term. No individual or group of individuals owns a foundation's assets. "According to the Foundation Center, a private foundation is a nongovernmental, nonprofit organization, which has a principal fund managed by its own trustees or directors." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private...
The relevant question is, does a person have a right to create a legal entity that is not privately owned, and transfer his or her property to that entity. In today's legal environment, I think both foundations and trusts would fall into this category. These types of legal entities often survive well beyond the deaths of the original donors.
The relevant question is, does a person have a right to create a legal entity that is not privately owned, and transfer his or her property to that entity. In today's legal environment, I think both foundations and trusts would fall into this category. These types of legal entities often survive well beyond the deaths of the original donors.
Sure they are. Again: can a corporation or foundation vote? No. Can they purchase property or hire people? No. Only people can do those things. Corporations are convenient containers for legal purposes - nothing more. It is only the people within the organizations who actually do anything.
What is the real purpose someone creates a corporation in the first place? Tax and legal liability. It is to shield their personal assets to some degree from business liabilities and to provide a convenient method for the government to tax you. That's about it. Foundations are created pretty much for the same reasons, they just tend to try to avoid the taxation part altogether.
"An agent is not an owner, either in an everyday sense or in a legal sense."
According to the definition you wanted to use - the Objectivist one - I can't see any real differentiation there. The definition has no limitations or exclusions for agents.
"A foundation has assets and agents but no legal owner."
I think you've constructed a straw man and now you're tilting at windmills. I'll leave you to it.
Whether or not a foundation would exist in a society with better laws depends on the purpose of those who establish them. There would ultimately be no need for a tax shelter, but an individual or group of individuals may still want to establish a foundation as an organization to promote some ideas or other purpose.
A foundation is a corporation, but a corporation without owners. It is not synonymous with the employees running it, and its assets are not private property. Foundations as well as many other organized entities legally existing in a mixed economy would not be appropriate in a society based on Objectivist principles.
Load more comments...