"Libertarians are not corporate apologists"

[grantbdev]

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/oct/22/libertarians-are-not-corporate-apologists/

I think it makes a lot of sense, but do you think this piece will finally convince the "progressives" out there?

[Richy_T]

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/oct/22/libertarians-are-not-corporate-apologists/

I think it makes a lot of sense, but do you think this piece will finally convince the "progressives" out there?

None of the other disastrous failures of their policies have. They'll just point to an economy that has been run into the ground by huge government and regulation and cry about the failures of the free market again.

[MiloSmith]

The first is size itself. Without the guarantee that one’s personal assets are off limits in a lawsuit, one must take more risk in buying stock in a corporation. Imagine if potential stockholders knew that their personal assets might be at risk in a case like the BP oil spill. Some number of shareholders would decide against taking that risk, or at least limit it by acquiring less stock.

If Obama tried abolishing limited liability corporations and give trial lawyers who win a case the ability to take the CEO's mansion he would be called a communist and be impeached by the end of the day.

[Explodicle]

I still think corporations would exist without limited liability; people would just buy liability insurance along with their corporate stocks.

[myrkul]

I still think corporations would exist without limited liability; people would just buy liability insurance along with their corporate stocks.

Oh, certainly. It's the CEO getting to keep his personal fortune while the shareholders get screwed that's the problem with corporations.

[MiloSmith]

But this proposal would not limit shareholder liability, it would make their house just a vulnerable as the CEO's.