Comment: Of course I would choose

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Tell ya what ... (see in situ)

Of course I would choose

Of course I would choose option a. I would undoubtedly prefer that my reponsibility be diluted by the law, and I don't fault anyone else for feeling the same way and thereby choosing to organize under terms which offer limited liability.

This is good for the person who wishes to start a business, or invest in one, but it is bad for anyone who is wronged by those who operate under this limited responsibility.

I don't fault business owners for taking advantage of the law, I fault the state for making it. Special priveleges have no place in a society of free people. Limited liability alters decision making and it distorts the market to favor those who the laws protect.

Do you believe that this force of the state is warranted for the sake of creating more businesses? Should we be ruled by some subjective sense of practicality, or should principles be our guide?

I support principles no matter because I don't believe a hypothetically good end justifies a blatantly immoral means. Nevertheless, I think that if those who start and invest in business had to take full responsibility for their actions, if consideration for one's whole livelihood was brought into each business decision, then business would be better, not worse.

The existence of corporations brings us regulations. If the contributors to a business had to endure the potential for full liability in the wake of each decision, then you would find the tendency of the individual actors to be self regulating as a result the most powerful interest, that is, self-interest. Self-interest, as it stands under limited liability, causes the sort of whimsical and dangerous decisions which give regulators a place.

Oh, it is a terrible cycle, a horrific mess; if only people would recognize the benefits of freedom, of the need for responsibility which is not diluted by forceful laws brought upon by the collusion of business and the state.