From: James Wetterau (jwjr@panix.com)
Date: Mon Sep 04 2000 - 10:44:09 MDT
"phil osborn" <philosborn@hotmail.com> says:
>...
> In fact, the push by the "progressives" of the latter 19th century -
> trust-busting, regulatory boards, etc., was actually a Satanic Pact, if ever
> there was one. In exchange for accepting state control of one's business -
> which is what one does when one incorporates (think of all the business
> regulations, and all the bureacrats who feed off them) - one gets the .ltd
> stamp, and if you make a risky bet on your chemical plant (or nuclear
> processing facility) then you lose the company, but you personally walk
> scott free.
>
> Talk about socially irresponsible policy ...
I agree wholeheartedly, though I would add to the history you cite
that limitation of liability began much earlier as an English royal
charter, according to my reading of R. Buckminster Fuller. He claimed
that it was a royal gift to indemnify the owners of ships against the
risks of dangerous ocean voyages of exploration, trade or conquest
conducted for the English Crown. But I agree that the modern form of
management of large corporate affairs is essentially a matter of
becoming a private deputy of the state in many of its efforts. In
response to the question by "Wei Dai" <weidai@eskimo.com>:
> .. That is true, but what is your proposed alternative? Do you seriously
> suggest eliminating liability limitation for corporations? What about
> the liability limitation represented by personal bankruptcies? ...
I would propose doing away with these laws, as I would do away with
all laws that do not respect force or the initiation of force, though
this should be done in an intelligent manner, perhaps by phasing out
the current regime. I would prefer to rely on a system of privately
produced law in private courts to determine standards of liability for
owners of corporate equity, with no special exemptions granted except
those that common law finds to be reasonable (obviously a day-to-day
director ought to have different liability than a less active
partner).
Anyway, this is all a side note to the original topic, and I'm not
terribly interested in carrying on my half of a discussion or debate
on the topic, so if anyone wishes to keep this topic alive, please be
aware that I'm going to excuse myself from further participation. I
consider this topic to be well-worn stuff covered in the law and
economics texts that Extropians frequently reference.
All the best,
James
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:45 MST