Kinsella on Corporations

The difference between tarring and feathering all corporations everywhere and actually rolling back the insanity that has been happening these past years:

Ownership implies the right to control. It does not imply liability. Liability flows from actions, whether those actions employ means owned by the actor or not. In other words, whether one owns a means employed in an act of aggression is irrelevant. Likewise, having an ownership (control) right does not automatically imply responsibility.

This is what I have been trying to get across with the need for some sort of court. We have to address the actions of various people. Some of those actions rise to the level at which all of the assets of the corporations and the individuals who perpetrated those actions are forfeit. But simply attacking owners creates yet another pretext for the bureaucrat. The revolutionary mindset is wholly owned by the state, for it eternally proclaims itself the mediator through which the oppressors are crushed, and it is the bureaucracy through which assets are redistributed to the victims. What we desperately need, however, is no more bureaucrats! Certainly we must put to an end various corporations, but we must do so because they are fraudulent, and for the larger message, to show that criminal gains made through the state shall no longer stand.