Bitcoin Forum
October 24, 2017, 01:52:41 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: "Libertarians are not corporate apologists"  (Read 677 times)
grantbdev
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 292



View Profile
October 22, 2012, 09:27:03 PM
 #1

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?

Don't use BIPS!
1508809961
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508809961

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508809961
Reply with quote  #2

1508809961
Report to moderator
1508809961
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508809961

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508809961
Reply with quote  #2

1508809961
Report to moderator
There are several different types of Bitcoin clients. EWallets are like banks -- a central organization has complete control over your money. You shouldn't put much money in EWallets.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
October 22, 2012, 09:29:22 PM
 #2

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.

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
MiloSmith
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
October 22, 2012, 09:29:52 PM
 #3

Quote
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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
October 22, 2012, 10:03:01 PM
 #4

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

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
October 22, 2012, 10:17:24 PM
 #5

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.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
MiloSmith
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
October 22, 2012, 10:29:17 PM
 #6

But this proposal would not limit shareholder liability, it would make their house just a vulnerable as the CEO's.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!