Entitlement 101:
If we claim that we have a stake in the outcome of some business deal, then we can claim to have a seat at the bargaining table. Such a false premise can be achieved if only one finds an arbitrary metric or ambiguous enough concept that justifies his stake. For instance, if we define an externality as 

Certain actors exercise the ability to choose who participates in the markets and who to exclude ¹. They also choose which language is acceptable; ² which language is not; ³ methods of carrying out these controls; ⁴ and it all appears to be the result of free market dynamics, though it certainly is not ⁵. Even the production of disinformation reports ⁶ appears to be solely free market (or "soft control") actions on the surface. But if these actions, which most would justifiably label as tyranny, are not purely from the markets, then why is it that a conglomerate of corporations appear to be at the center of it all rather than The State's agencies?

This is not hypothetical; and while most may assume that the issue lies in both the markets and the state, the two can conceptually and empirically be separated and individually studied.

The tyrannical conglomerate at the heart of censorship, indoctrination, and statist propaganda is the principal threat to individualism, property rights, and mutually beneficial exchanges. Where The State is a threat in practice, the conglomerate supplements that tyrannical rule, in cognition (in statist theory, anyway). That is, to ensure that The State's power remains as unimpeded by the Internal Threat ^a as possible, the conglomerate has been made an extension of The State to act as a mentor to that threat - to placate it and guide it into compliant servitude. Otherwise, The State would be burdened in conflict with the Internal Threat - the people would be aware of the relationship between power (the state) and progress (the markets). If The People are not placated, The State would crumble under rebellion. The state cannot afford to be honest: some men (us) will have power over others (you) in an unproductive and non-mutual way. Thus, the State's parasitic existence requires the control of many minds; and since The State's agencies are a part of the King's gaurd, then they are met with suspicion by The People. Thus, The State's agencies hire what appears to be private actors to do their bidding since those actors will be met with less suspicion by other private actors - The People.

The State's not-so-private actors degrade areas of science, targets the mentally ill, psychologically harms children, wages war against the family unit, and impacts elections and other major events. However, I do not want to propose ignorant solutions. I do not want to limit the power of one tyrant merely to empower the might of another (ahem, antitrust enforcement). I want to be careful about this. How do we end one tyrant's reign while safeguarding liberty and keeping government power in check? In other words,

• Does the legal form of the 'corporation' need to be abolished?
• Does the state "choose" or privilege some individuals over others?

Does the corporation enjoy privilege over the non-corporation? No, and this is why:

Traditionally, people who owned businesses were exclusively sole proprietors or in partnered ownership. Such partnerships were not legal entities - they were merely the way in which people arranged their business affairs. Regular owners were liable for the full amount of any debt in their business, while limited-liability owners were liable to a lesser extent. A limited-liability partner would be a partner who contributes capital to the business but barters to not be (as) liable for debt of the business, depending on his agreement with the other partners and the amount of capital he puts forth. There were normal partners and limited-liability partners, and people arranged their affairs in ways that they saw fit. If one party wanted limited liability for losses to the business, then that was absorbed into the bargaining table by other parties. As a result, the limited liability party also received less earnings since that party was also less liable for losses. Thus, if all parties agreed, it is not the business of outside parties to claim this is unfair as this simply reduces to two parties using their property as they see fit.

The state then defined a legal business form – the corporation – that a business could adopt, or "incorporate", but only through the state. If a business wishes to

• File articles of corporation with the business entities department of the state, which is usually the secretary of state
• Write bylaws (sort of an operating agreement)

then a business can incorporate.

A corporation is a legal entity divided into shareholders, board of directors, and officers and is legally treated like a person with most of the rights of an actual person. This, by itself is simply a practical way of doing business. The legal maxim of like must deal with like applies here: How does a state, a non-person, deal with a real person? It does so by reducing them down to a legal personality, like itself. Likewise for a business form.

Imagine trying to sue 1,000 shareholders – an impossible administrative hurdle. If those shareholders held limited liability status, you could instead sue their single legal entity. The "privilege" of limited liability can also be argued as a legal convenience of the opponent to the offending corporation. It is far more convenient to sue a single legal entity, and to do business with a single legal entity, than it is for an unknown (and constantly shifting!) number of shareholders.

What does a business gain from incorporating? It gains a simple administrative convenience – the organization of the corporation into a board of directors, shareholders, and officers. It also gains for its members a sense of security from errors of the business, and as such, those members also receive less of the rewards from that business.

What does a business lose from incorporating? It is subject to additional regulation from the state. It has to pay taxes twice.

Incorporated status may simply have been an excuse for the government to regulate businesses that accept this legal form. The government has the sole authority to grant the form and as such, dictates the terms. "Here, take this privilege. You are very much welcome, but there are costs to this privilege that I am generously endowing you with. You will be taxed twice and succumbed to arbitrary regulation." - Gov, probably.

Government had another incentive to create the legal form of the modern corporation, and this incentive does not necessarily benefit the corporation. In traditional businesses, if the government wishes to collude with it for nefarious purposes, that collusion is contingent on the whims of a single owner or partnership, in which case a single death or external event could end the collusion. If the government creates a more long-lasting, intergenerational form of a business entity, it could collude without worrying about a small number of fickle citizens changing their minds – or dying.

But What About the Liability Issues of the Corporation?

In a free and market, the ethics of corporations reduces down to liability issues.

The shareholders, board of directors, and officers that comprise a corporation are personally protected from liabilities, debt, and lawsuits of the corporation – of their business. This seems like it is in stark contrast to non-corporate business owners, who have to take responsibility for their failures and their commitments. The corporate form appears to be a privilege on the surface, because the corporate shareholders seem to enjoy a more risk-free market status. This is why some libertarians believe that this limited liability status is unethical. I will show that this is accounted for in business dealings, so it is effectively not a privilege.

Creditors know that when they lend money to a corporation, they are limited to the assets of the corporation. In other words, creditors know that if they don't get paid back, they can't go after the personal assets of the shareholders. They are limited to the corporation's assets when risking doing business with the corporation. Consequentially, the lenders are going to lend proportionate to what the corporation is worth, not necessarily what the shareholders are worth. Creditors are going to take this limited liability into account when conducting business with the corporation. In other words, the limited liability status is absorbed into the calculations at the bargaining table.

Lenders may even request that major shareholders personally guarantee a deal with them, in which case, the corporation and those shareholders will barter for better conditions to the financial deal since the personal assets of the involved shareholders is risked in addition to the corporation's assets. Clearly, the limited liability of the shareholders in a corporation is accounted for in business dealings because it limits the amount a lender will lend, to the extent of which, a greater sum may entail bringing some personal assets to the bargaining table.

If this is not enough to convince you that shareholders should not necessarily be held liable for corporate debt and mistakes, consider the scenario where our legal system follows the respondeat superior doctrine.

The Latin term respondeat superior, which translates as “let the master answer,” refers to a legal doctrine in which an employer may be held responsible for the actions of his employees, when the actions are performed “in the course of employment.” In order for respondeat superior to apply, there must be a clear employee-employer relationship established, as the principle does not apply to actions by an independent contractor. ⁷

Sure, if a master commands a servant to carry out a harmful or negligent act, then the master should be held responsible by libertarian principles. However, the mere master-servant status is being used in respondeat superior to hold the master accountable for all negligent/harmful actions of the servant in many cases. In respondeat superior, de facto ownership is not distinguished from de jure ownership. If you own a vehicle (de jure ownership) but I steal it and kill someone with it (in which case I have de facto ownership of the vehicle since I am literally controlling the future course of that vehicle), should you be held liable for that death? Of course not. It makes sense that shareholders are not liable for the debts of the corporations that they hold, because those debts were decisions (mistakes or improvements) by the managers of the corporation, not necessarily the shareholders.

"Well, the shareholder votes on the leadership of the board of directors." And? If the board of directors makes a mistake, are we going to distinguish between the shareholders that voted for those directors from the shareholders that voted against them? Also, there are other chain of command and causation issues. If the issue is with management that the directors chose, then are the directors responsible? Are the shareholders responsible for the actions of managers that the board of directors chose? Where does the legal causality end?

On the other hand, if a director hires someone who clearly had mental health or addiction issues, and that person causes some harm, then the director should be liable to an extent. But in this scenario, causality is proven beyond a mere belief in hierarchical duty.

All of this is to say that the legal definition of a corporation is not a privilege because in a free society the ethics of corporations reduces down to liability issues. If a problem exists, it is government collusion with specific corporations. We would have to treat it on an individual basis – not the very concept of what a corporation is.

The Actual Privilege of Tyranny, Inc.

When humans organize and pursue a goal, they tend to label that goal. They name it. They have to do this so that they have something to refer to when they talk about their endeavor and to distinguish it from similar pursuits and pursuits in competition with their own. This act is no different than naming a new invention, naming a sailboat, an infant, etc. This action is natural with practical advantages. People need to name their affiliations to announce their collective endeavor to the world. These affiliations, endeavors, or whatever else you might call them are created by individuals. They are individuals pursuing their own interests, acting in their own ways according to the endeavors they have all mutually agreed to be a part of.

As such, these collective pursuits are still dealt with legally in the same way that individuals are dealt with. If a collective endeavor is liable for some action, some individuals in it may be held more or less liable than others, depending on the circumstances, individual involvement, and the contractual obligations of the collective endeavor. In summary, individuals are held liable when careful argumentation shows that they are liable.

The contractual obligation of the corporate form is simply a case where individuals form a collective pursuit that their personal assets are not risked in. They essentially reason, let's pool in some resources (the corporate assets) that can be negotiated and risked. This limits their bargaining power in business dealings because their personal assets are not included on the bargaining table, which is why they and their assets are not liable.

The big picture is that the corporate form reduces down to individuals.

And that is the key to understanding the true privilege of certain corporations.

Imagine if the state extended its far-reaching hand into your workplace and gifted your workplace peer with an expensive training module. The state gives your peer an advantage over you. This peer could receive a raise or a manager position that you may have obtained had the state not privileged him over you. The state's interference disrupted fair competition.

So why should the state be permitted to privilege some corporations over their competitors? We can call these privileges "grants," "bailouts," "stimulus," or "subsidies". Whatever the term, the principle remains: some individuals are chosen by the state to receive privileges at the expense of others (those "grants" are excess taxations that others had to pay for). This is not meritocracy. This is not a free market.

Make no mistake, this is happening, and the state does not choose corporations that have no governing capabilities. If a group of individuals in the market have an ability to control, manipulate, coerce, or exclude a population on large scales, there is a good chance that the state will choose these individuals (which tend to be certain corporations) to succeed, expand, and collude with ⁵.

The corporation is a disguise for the state, which leads to my speculation on the third reason that the state created the corporation as a legal form. Choosing certain market agents over others is easier to disguise when those agents are behind a legal facade to begin with. In either case, whether this decision was deliberate or not, the state is creating inequality.

The state is creating inequality using taxpayer money for the purpose of controlling and manipulating the tax payer. Adjacent to this network control is the same organizations, repeatedly showing up in DHS, White House, and USAID reports ⁵. These organizations specialize in censorship,³ redirection,² targeting and then oversexualizing children online,^[2][8] placing Marxist or statist propaganda in front of the mentally ill by luring them into fake psychology pages,³ and releasing unscientific reports over extremism, hate, and terrorism ⁶. These are the same organizations that admit to having unprecedented network control during the 2020 US presidential election ⁹.

This is the ne0-Marxist, statist campaign that our beloved government is involved in, and it could be partly abolished by ending the existing privileges the state grants certain corporations.

The Advocate for Rights and Knowledge of Americans

^a All of The State's fears can be classified as the Internal Threat of rebellion, The People; or the External Threat of other states. After all, if it exists parasitically by forcefully taking rather than freely producing, then the only thing that can threaten its rule is also force - violent uprising internally or violent takeover externally. Historically, no known examples are known of when a state was made significantly smaller (less parasitic) by civil methods such as voting and discussion. Only violence or the threat of violence can counter the initiation of violence.

[1] Slade Bond. Lina Khan. Phillip Berenbroick. Joseph Ehrenkrantz. Amanda Lewis. Anna Lenhart. Catherine Larsen. Joseph Van Wye. "Competition in the Digital Marketplace." Subcommittee of Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law of the Committee on the Judiciary.

[2] "How Far-Leftism is Forced On Us." The ARKA Journal.

[3] "Shadowbanned." The ARKA Journal.

[4] "Manufacturing Support." The ARKA Journal.

[5] "The US Government's Role In Censorship and Redirection Online." The ARKA Journal.

[6] "The False Agenda." The ARKA Journal.

[7] "Respondeat Superior - Definition, Examples, Cases." legaldictionary.net

[8] "Communism and Sanctioned Pedophilia". The ARKA Journal.

[9] "Propaganda and Nationwide Monitoring of Conservatives During the 2020 Election". The ARKA Journal.