Post #1740358 · Elektrine

2026-04-20 16:13 UTC

> This is an arbitrary list of things and I don’t agree that all corporations have all of these > I’m curious why you’re willing to call them businesses but not corporations. [It's definitional](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation), a corporation is a specific legal structure. A single trader is not a corporation, but is a business. Ditto for Rome, which I've never heard called a corporation even though it was all about money. > They compete with rival cartels in all the same ways corporations would if they could (or already do when they can get away with it). *Civil* war. In case you aren't following the relevant news, the Sinaloa cartel is fighting with *itself*. A corporation can never do that - government laws set out very clearly who controls what. And, that makes a huge impact on what kind of people run a corporation, and how they go about managing their business. Managing the loyalty of underlings is of little concern, while it's about the only concern for a warlord. If a VP tried to run their own business with company assets, they'd just be jailed for breach of trust.

Replies (1)

@teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 2026-04-20 20:00

I admit I am misusing the term "cartel" here, given that it refers to a group of independent interests acting cooperatively, not a single entity. And legally recognized corporations already attempt to form cartels whenever possible, which is the entire purpose of anti-trust law. And I agree that govt legislations each have their own definitions for what constitutes a "corporation", but it's the same for "marriage". Yet we wouldn't say marriage only exists if you have a govt. I don't think it's useful or interesting to end the discussion at "a govt defines a corporation, therefore a corporation doesn't exist without a govt". Because I maintain that if the US govt disappeared, all the entities you currently consider "US-based corporations" would not disappear. Similarly, corporations currently operate internationally in many different countries with many different legislative requirements and many different definitions of "corporation". Yet we don't think of them as existing exclusively in the context of any one of those countries. > A corporation can never do that - government laws set out very clearly who controls what Corporations do have infighting, and Hostile Takeovers do happen, and we are in agreement that ONLY reason they're not bloodier is because of governments enforcing their laws. But also, I shouldn't have made "cartel" analagous to "corporation", since the analogy for a cartel civil war would be *multiple* businesses or corporations having a falling out. But we also already have a sordid history of US "corporations" operating outside the laws of other countries, oftentimes with the help of the US military. So how do we square that circle?

Open ##1740359