Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: JLS and the corporation

Expand Messages
  • kiddleddee
    ... The root of the ... be ... _______________________________________________________________________ The problem of limited liability of the corporations
    Message 1 of 49 , Feb 28, 2006
      --- In LeftLibertarian@yahoogroups.com, Sheldon Richman <sheldon@...>
      The root of the
      > problem, according to van Eeghen, is not limited liability (which can
      > achieved in some manner in partnerships) but the entity status of a
      > corporation, which is separate from the shareholders.

      > Sheldon Richman

      The problem of limited liability of the corporations legal status will
      soon be a moot point anyway as the government simply limits liability
      by legislation or prohibits law suits altogether.
    • terry12622000
      I never posted that adults can not contract with each other to limit liablity between them. To the contrary In fact I have said that basic contracts, insurance
      Message 49 of 49 , Apr 21 12:10 PM
        I never posted that adults can not contract with each other to limit
        liablity between them. To the contrary In fact I have said that basic
        contracts, insurance and reinsurance through average market buying
        and selling may not be enough in some cases, that a network of
        agreements not to sue may have a great deal of value in a post state
        or libertarian world. I think these agreements would not only be
        benifical to limit many suits in a post state world of business but
        also to limits lawsuits from torts etc that may have had the
        permission of the state. For one example John Doe may have been gun
        ho for supporting the war on drugs, if I make 40,000 dollars a year
        and go to prison for 20 years I am out at least 800,000 dollars, at
        least double that for punitive damages for at least 2.4 million
        dollars. Now if there were 20 people who activily supported the drug
        war for every one effected by the drug war then the economic damage
        cost would be split between 20 people, so John would only owe me
        40,000 dollars in economic damages but the total punitive damages of
        the 20 people may be more than 1.6 million dollars, some may owe more
        than 80,000 in punitive damages it would demand how active they were,
        how cruel they were and how much assets they have. A 80,000 dollar
        punitive cost is likely to teach the average American a lesson but it
        will not be much of a lesson to a billionaire.--- In
        LeftLibertarian@yahoogroups.com, Brad Spangler <brad_spangler@...>
        > --- MikeHolmesTX@... wrote:
        > > Where is the libertarian argument that having some
        > > contractual relationship
        > > with someone else for economic purposes (or in your
        > > view, any purpose) puts
        > > one's entire owned assets at risk should the person
        > > I am contracting with do
        > > something bad and hurt someone or create the
        > > possibility of tort liability?
        > Liability for tortious misuse of your own property
        > (particularly by one's hired agent) is a pretty well
        > established principle. It arises NOT from your
        > contract with your hireling, but from your ownership
        > of your property.
        > > You have some kind of cave man theory of liability
        > > it would seem, where if I
        > > interact with Joe and he harms me, in my view, I can
        > > not only go after Joe but
        > > I can pursue the assets of everyone who every gave
        > > Joe a loan,
        > No.
        > > put money or
        > > assets into Joe's business,
        > Is it a loan or do they own stock? If they own stock,
        > they are an owner of the company. If Joe harmed them
        > using your property and you let him have control of
        > your property, then you *may* have been negligent.
        > > hired him, received an
        > > interest or dividend payment
        > > from him, or cooperated with him in some kind of
        > > economic venture. After
        > > all, don't all of these people (in your view) have
        > > the obligation to monitor each
        > > and every future action by Joe to ensure that their
        > > financial dealings don't
        > > somehow lead to Joe's harmful actions?
        > No, because not each of your cited examples involve
        > ownership, might not involve tortious damages and
        > might not rise to the level of negligence.
        > > This is crazy and I know of no anarchist theorist,
        > > even the early pseudo
        > > Marxist ones, who held that view on personal
        > > liability.
        > Right, not even me. See above.
        > > of total economic autarky, where every person has to
        > > control 100% of their
        > > assets in order to ensure no harm might come to
        > > others (this might be called
        > > "Jain" economics, analogous to the religion of
        > > Jainism which regards all forms of
        > > life sacred and hence prohibits killing of any
        > > living thing, included bugs,
        > > microbes, etc.).
        > To argue that risk should not be wiped out by state
        > fiat is by no means an argument that risk ought not be
        > managed.
        > > Further, since a view seems to require some
        > > proposition that adults cannot
        > > contract with others specifically acknowledging and
        > > agreeing that their tort
        > > liability is limited in some fashion,
        > Tort liability by definition would involve
        > interactions with people that you have no such
        > agreement with or no agreement that covers the issue
        > in question. A and B can contract all they want with
        > each and there's no conceivable way that can remove
        > the ability of C to sue A. A can *insure* against such
        > claims with B, D, E or whoever -- but that is a means
        > for dealing with risk arising from liability. It does
        > not wipe out liability for torts from third parties
        > and can't.
        > > Why can't adults contract with others for liability
        > > limitations?
        > You might be confusing me with cottondrop. People can
        > contract amongst themselves for anything they all
        > agree on. That, however, has nothing to do with people
        > who are not parties to such contracts.
        > > which doesn't deliberately or recklessly harm others
        > > or innocent third parties.
        > That's what I'm talking about, although you seem to
        > think it slightly rarer than I do.
        > > Where is the self limiting "libertarian" argument
        > > which says that I cannot
        > > agree with others to deal with them on explicitly
        > > limited liability terms, even
        > > absent some State enforcement?
        > That's not my argument.
        > > If there is some argument about the inherent
        > > inability of libertarian society
        > > to recognize limitations on tort liability, lets
        > > hear it.
        > Tort law is law covering damages where no contract
        > between the parties exists or applies. When such a
        > contract does exist, it is contract law rather than
        > tort law which applies. People can contract among
        > themselves to manage potential tort related risk, but
        > you can not create a contract to take away the right
        > to sue for damages of someone who never signed your
        > contract.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.