Can a company purchase a nation?

[D4nt3]

If you mean "buy a country and rule it," yes that's possible.  It's not that far fetched as long as we realize that government is different from land ownership.

 

What will take place is not a purchase of all available lands and waters, but rather, a voluntary secession of sovereignty and transfer of the right to govern by the existing government to a corporation for whatever consideration both parties agrees on. This is no different from one country telling another country it's relinquishing itself to that country, another country invading another country, a person hiring mercenaries to overthrow an existing government and name himself President, Supreme Leader, Dictator, or whatever he wants to call himself.   

 

Before this can be done, that country's legislature may need to exercise some form of legal remedy that would grant a juridical person, such as that corporation, the right to rule. This may not be necessary but it does give a semblance of legitimacy to the transaction. 

 

I would presume that the corporation will govern the country in a style similar to either absolute monarchy, totalitarian regime. or dictatorship. Whatever form it takes, it will be unique. Private ownership and businesses may continue to exist, or the corporation may choose to expropriate them in it's favor.  It would be interesting to see how it would behave towards the public domain -- all bodies of lands and waters within it's territory and the animals, plants, minerals, oil, ores, etc. contained therein. The state owns everything in the public domain, but the dominion it exercises over them is not akin to ownership in the traditional sense, but rather, it exercises patrimony over the public domain in favor of it's people and future generations. Whether a corporation would exercise the same obligation remains to be seen. 

 

A company ruling  over a country in not unprecedented in history. The British East India Company when it seized control of India is one example. The Dutch East Indies Company also ruled territories in favor of their government. Arguably they may not have exercised absolute control but acted as representative of their government, but what transpired is close to a corporation owning a country.   

 

Corporations don't go to this extent because there are cheaper ways to accomplish the same goal. Instead they would bribe corrupt officials, destabilize an unfriendly government, and even sponsor a coup. Some methods are not that hostile. Many corporations, with the aid of their own government, simply exercise a sphere of influence over a country, Japan might offer assistance to less developed nations to develop it's infrastructures so long as the contract is awarded to a Japanese company. This is a typical first world nation practice that's been adopted by China as well. The US normally gives aid and favorable loans to countries in exchange for US nationals and corporations to be given rights to own property and exploit resources in that country but the privilege is not always reciprocal. This is politely referred to as a parity rights agreement, but the locals call it rape.   

 

In the example of Samsung buying South Korea, if that happens, do we start calling Koreans ... Samsunites ?

 

 

[NytroN32D]

Just now, D4nt3 said:

If you mean "buy a country and rule it," yes that's possible.  It's not that far fetched as long as we realize that government is different from land ownership.

 

What will take place is not a purchase of all available lands and waters, but rather, a voluntary secession of sovereignty and transfer of the right to govern by the existing government to a corporation for whatever consideration both parties agrees on. This is no different from one country telling another country it's relinquishing itself to that country, another country invading another country, a person hiring mercenaries to overthrow an existing government and name himself President, Supreme Leader, Dictator, or whatever he wants to call himself.   

 

Before this can be done, that country's legislature may need to exercise some form of legal remedy that would grant a juridical person, such as that corporation, the right to rule. This may not be necessary but it does give a semblance of legitimacy to the transaction. 

 

I would presume that the corporation will govern the country in a style similar to either absolute monarchy, totalitarian regime. or dictatorship. Whatever form it takes, it will be unique. Private ownership and businesses may continue to exist, or the corporation may choose to expropriate them in it's favor.  It would be interesting to see how it would behave towards the public domain -- all bodies of lands and waters within it's territory and the animals, plants, minerals, oil, ores, etc. contained therein. The state owns everything in the public domain, but the dominion it exercises over them is not akin to ownership in the traditional sense, but rather, it exercises patrimony over the public domain in favor of it's people and future generations. Whether a corporation would exercise the same obligation remains to be seen. 

 

A company ruling  over a country in not unprecedented in history. The British East India Company when it seized control of India is one example. The Dutch East Indies Company also ruled territories in favor of their government. Arguably they may not have exercised absolute control but acted as representative of their government, but what transpired is close to a corporation owning a country.   

 

Corporations don't go to this extent because there are cheaper ways to accomplish the same goal. Instead they would bribe corrupt officials, destabilize an unfriendly government, and even sponsor a coup. Some methods are not that hostile. Many corporations, with the aid of their own government, simply exercise a sphere of influence over a country, Japan might offer assistance to less developed nations to develop it's infrastructures so long as the contract is awarded to a Japanese company. This is a typical first world nation practice that's been adopted by China as well. The US normally gives aid and favorable loans to countries in exchange for US nationals and corporations to be given rights to own property and exploit resources in that country but the privilege is not always reciprocal. This is politely referred to as a parity rights agreement, but the locals call it rape.   

 

In the example of Samsung buying South Korea, if that happens, do we start calling Koreans ... Samsunites ?

 

 

we need this in latvia

[Volbet]

3 hours ago, D4nt3 said:

A company ruling  over a country in not unprecedented in history. The British East India Company when it seized control of India is one example. The Dutch East Indies Company also ruled territories in favor of their government. Arguably they may not have exercised absolute control but acted as representative of their government, but what transpired is close to a corporation owning a country.   

Historically speaking the closest we have to a company running a country would probably be the Congo Free State. 

That was the personal property of King Leopold of Belgium and was pretty much a source of personal income for him. And it was run without interference from the Belgian government.  

[asus killer]

33 minutes ago, D4nt3 said:

If you mean "buy a country and rule it," yes that's possible.  It's not that far fetched as long as we realize that government is different from land ownership.

 

What will take place is not a purchase of all available lands and waters, but rather, a voluntary secession of sovereignty and transfer of the right to govern by the existing government to a corporation for whatever consideration both parties agrees on. This is no different from one country telling another country it's relinquishing itself to that country, another country invading another country, a person hiring mercenaries to overthrow an existing government and name himself President, Supreme Leader, Dictator, or whatever he wants to call himself.   

 

Before this can be done, that country's legislature may need to exercise some form of legal remedy that would grant a juridical person, such as that corporation, the right to rule. This may not be necessary but it does give a semblance of legitimacy to the transaction. 

 

I would presume that the corporation will govern the country in a style similar to either absolute monarchy, totalitarian regime. or dictatorship. Whatever form it takes, it will be unique. Private ownership and businesses may continue to exist, or the corporation may choose to expropriate them in it's favor.  It would be interesting to see how it would behave towards the public domain -- all bodies of lands and waters within it's territory and the animals, plants, minerals, oil, ores, etc. contained therein. The state owns everything in the public domain, but the dominion it exercises over them is not akin to ownership in the traditional sense, but rather, it exercises patrimony over the public domain in favor of it's people and future generations. Whether a corporation would exercise the same obligation remains to be seen. 

 

A company ruling  over a country in not unprecedented in history. The British East India Company when it seized control of India is one example. The Dutch East Indies Company also ruled territories in favor of their government. Arguably they may not have exercised absolute control but acted as representative of their government, but what transpired is close to a corporation owning a country.   

 

Corporations don't go to this extent because there are cheaper ways to accomplish the same goal. Instead they would bribe corrupt officials, destabilize an unfriendly government, and even sponsor a coup. Some methods are not that hostile. Many corporations, with the aid of their own government, simply exercise a sphere of influence over a country, Japan might offer assistance to less developed nations to develop it's infrastructures so long as the contract is awarded to a Japanese company. This is a typical first world nation practice that's been adopted by China as well. The US normally gives aid and favorable loans to countries in exchange for US nationals and corporations to be given rights to own property and exploit resources in that country but the privilege is not always reciprocal. This is politely referred to as a parity rights agreement, but the locals call it rape.   

 

In the example of Samsung buying South Korea, if that happens, do we start calling Koreans ... Samsunites ?

 

 

in that scenario if a company rules the country, in fact what you have is a person ruling a country, the CEO. So i hardly see the difference between that and a normal dictator.

In the case of the British East India Company i don't think they ruled India, there was a governor appointed by the colonial power (the Queen i guess), they ruled the commerce. I might be wrong, but without searching it's the idea i have.

[D4nt3]

6 minutes ago, Volbet said:

Historically speaking the closest we have to a company running a country would probably be the Congo Free State. 

That was the personal property of King Leopold of Belgium and was pretty much source of personal income for him. And it was run without interference from the Belgian government.  

 

That's correct. I did not use it as an example because King Leopold exercised it in his capacity as an absolute monarch. The sadder part of that history is that, as an absolute monarch, every Congolese is is considered his personal property. 

 

[D4nt3]

32 minutes ago, asus killer said:

in that scenario if a company rules the country, in fact what you have is a person ruling a country, the CEO. So i hardly see the difference between that and a normal dictator.

 

That's true. Even though a corporation has a legal personality distinct from the natural persons that comprises the company, it acts trough it's senior officers and board of directors. Without an authority to provide governance, the corporation may rule the country in the same way that a dictator would. 

 

Quote

In the case of the British East India Company i don't think they ruled India, there was a governor appointed by the colonial power (the Queen i guess), they ruled the commerce. I might be wrong, but without searching it's the idea i have.

Sorry, but not really. The British East India Company was given a royal charter that gave them direct control over territories in India from 1757 to 1858. It was only after the Indian Rebellion of 1857 that the British Empire took this privilege away and instituted direct control. Appointed Governor-Generals ruled over other parts of India but are often powerless to interfere with the Company. Charles Cornwallis was one of the few exceptions.   

 

I've given the East India Company as an example because I feel it was historically close to the issue. It was meant to serve as a possible predictor of what could happen if a corporation ruled a country. @asus killer also made a good point about King Leopold and his reign over the Congo which I personally consider one of the darkest points in human history.