If we truly want to separate state and economics, we first need to withdraw support for the political and legal system that creates and enables corporations.

All modern economies have specific sets of rules for corporations — rules that are distinct from and often opposite to those for individuals and other types of organizations. These rules violate free-market norms in two major ways: they require corporations to submit to intrusive government oversight and regulation of their activities, and they give corporations special privileges that are denied to unincorporated firms or individuals.

Corporations are brought into existence by legislative permission. They can be snuffed out of existence just as easily through government revocation of their charters. This gives governments tremendous power to regulate corporations as they see fit, and encourages corporate decision makers to seek the “friendship” of powerful government agencies and do their bidding. The result is a toxic blend of crony capitalism and a “mixed” economy, within which the marketplace is anything but free.

Chief among corporate special privileges is “limited liability,” designed to shield owners of corporations from financial risk relating to corporate negligence or misbehavior. By granting limited liability to owners of corporations and denying it to unincorporated firms, the government is creating a double standard in the marketplace, one that favors corporations over individuals.

These government-conferred competitive advantages permit corporations to grow larger than they would in a free market, “crowding out” other types of business organizations in the process. Eventually we arrive at an economic landscape dominated by corporate executives and their regulators, at the expense of everyone else’s freedom.

Suing a corporation is a difficult, expensive and time-consuming process — much more so than suing another person. A corporation can easily dissolve or go bankrupt, even as its owners continue to prosper. Since corporations can own, buy, and sell one another, a privilege rightly denied to individuals, it is easy to establish a chain of corporate ownership to conceal the identity of the true owners, by setting up the controlling corporations in different domestic jurisdictions or in other countries.

A basic Objectivist principle is that governments should not interfere with anyone’s peaceful activities, provided those activities do not violate the rights of others. This principle applies not only to individuals, but also to groups of individuals — and a corporation is simply a group of individuals who share an interlocking set of contractual relationships.

A consistent application of this principle leads to this conclusion: any activities that are legally and morally legitimate for corporations should be equally legitimate for all other private, voluntary groups of people. Conversely, activities that violate the rights of others should be prohibited to all such groups. When it comes to legal rights and responsibilities, a free society should not treat corporations any differently from the way it treats any other privately organized groups.

This leads to the further conclusion that there is no need or justification for “corporation” as a legal concept at all. An unincorporated business should have exactly the same standing under the law as an incorporated business in matters such as liability, reporting requirements, and recognition of contracts. Aside from protecting the rights of third parties, governments should have no say regarding any firm’s form of organization, purpose, or method of operation. Legal protections extended to corporations should be equally available to all other groups.

Such a set of reforms, if applied consistently, would have far-reaching effects. It would do away with any reason to treat corporations as privileged legal entities. It would remove the need for a body of corporate law, separate from individual and contract law. It would render irrelevant the legal fiction of corporate personhood, along with the torturous logic needed to justify such a concept. It would bring more consistency and fairness to government policies regarding liability and secrecy. It would ensure that any legal protections given to corporate owners and agents would also extend to unincorporated individuals and groups. Taken together, these reforms would constitute a major step toward a more free economy.

I don't think you really can separate politics from economics. It's a pipe dream and here's why: Economics ultimately isn't nearly so much about the flow of goods and services as it is the personal values which drive those purchases. And values are the purview of government. People establish the governments they think will be most conducive to the protection of their way of life - whether that be a monarchy, constitutional republic, theocracy, or some blend of those.

Now I agree that government should stay out of "managing" economies, trade, etc. But that is a societal value - not some sort of "separation." It is choice NOT to intervene based on a fundamental virtue that understands the primacy of the individual in determining their own future and having that seminal right protected jealously by government.

We used to have such a government - or at least arguably the best in recorded history. What if our people were of such a quality of principle that they would throw the proverbial tea in the harbor if government attempted to tax it? What if our people were of the intestinal fortitude that were willing en masse to sacrifice their "sacred honor" and lives - if necessary - to reject the corruption of governing principles both at the ballot box and through conscious objection? What a glorious world that would be!

And what would that take in practice? It would require people of all kinds and stripes to actively seek for truth above their selfish desires. To think in the long term rather than to be driven by fleeting emotion. It would require educators with a passion for these principles to instill the love of learning about truth into the hearts of the youth.

Now is this ridiculous? Can humanity itself ever reach such an enlightened state? The prognosis at this point must seem bleak to many and is lost on many, many more. But I think we are coming to an inflection point where something will have to give. Debauchery and depravity eventually hit rock bottom. It is my hope that at such a time, many who participated will realize what a monumental mistake those choices were and turn from them. Those who reject corruption will be forced to stand up and fight.

How does one stay sane watching all this going on, knowing there is a better way, seeing those who are intent on destruction?

I guess the statists figure they can run an economy better than the residents of the economy can. Best thing that happened to our country since 2020 is that the leftists ARE in charge, and everyone gets to see how inept they are at getting results.

Yeah, stupid world, what Ayn Rand said.

My gracious. You are on a tear this a.m. I applaud such enegy! When I get really disgusted, I sit at my computer and start writing. If I sent some of what I write to my publisher, I'd probably get arrested.