Comment: Some problems with your position

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: "shares"... (see in situ)

Some problems with your position

You weren't responding to me, but I'm jumping in just for fun. ;-)

You said: "Also, corporations are not needed to protect the non-share assets of an investor. If a bank loans you money for some venture the bank is not liable for your actions."

So? That seems irrelevant to your point. What are "non-share assets" of an investor? Do you mean his car, home, personal bank account, college fund for kids, retirement fund, vacation home, etc? If so, then it is irrelevant what the bank's exposure is. What is relevant is what somebody can sue YOU for and take away YOUR assets (whether those assets are "non-share assets" or shares of your corporation or business).

You said: "And at the end of the day, the current corporate legal structure does not protect the value of shares. If the company goes under the share value goes with it."

If a company "goes under," then by definition it HAS NO VALUE. That is why it went under in the first place. If you push your car off a cliff, then the "value goes with it." If a business goes under, it has no value to protect. So, what's your point about the current corporate legal structure "protecting value?"

You said: "My bigger concern is liability of principals and partners in the operations and execution of the business of a joint venture. Contracts between the individuals engaging in the joint venture can assign personal liabilities. And insurance could be purchased, and even required by prospective customers and investors, to cover any liabilities."

Yes, this is one of the big issues. But you seem to be proposing something like a general partnership, where the partners have unlimited liability. Guess what? Any agreements you make between you and your partners regarding liabilities, HAS NO BEARING ON ME OR ANY OTHER THIRD PARTIES.

Let's say you have a partnership with someone. I do business with you. I sue you. You claim your partner is responsible for that. I say, "I don't give a damn what agreements you have with him, I am coming after ALL OWNERS, and that includes YOU."

So, you say you have a one million dollar insurance policy? Guess what? I'm going to sue you for FIVE million dollars because you might have some assets I can take. And your insurance company just might find a reason why they do not have to pay out on your policy.

You MIGHT be okay in a lawsuit with what you described -- but you very well might NOT.

You said: "[People] would not be able to create a separate legal entity if the business laws only recognized individuals. Law is not inherently or intrinsically required to recognize fictions. Such is a modern "innovation"."

True, you COULD do that. But it would be the END to any prosperity within society. You think lawsuits are bad NOW? Try removing ALL limited liability protections and you will see a free-for-all in the courts.

You said: "I'm a minarchist and believe one of the few valid roles of government is enforcement of the obligation of contracts (but only between real flesh and blood humans -- not fictions). :) "

I'm a minarchist/anarchist. My own term, but it means I recognize that government is fundamentally immoral, and I am in favor of he least government possible, whatever that might be. I'm willing to start with the US Constitution as the MAXIMUM government, and once there, I would be happy to find ways to make it smaller, or eliminate it.

I would like to point out to you, a minarchist who thinks government is necessary, that governments around the world are anarchic vis-a-vis themselves. There is NO world government (yet). Most governments get along for the most part. Just something to think about.

If we could ever get to a philosophical anarchy (no government because the people view it as immoral, rather than simply the government failed), then we would likely see all sorts of solutions to these problems. Insurance would probably be more in line with what you are referring to (part insurance/part court system/etc.).

For now, we "win" if we can reverse the direction of crony government.

Once again, I get back the the idea that it is cronyism that is the problem, not corporations, per se -- and certainly not limited liability for investors.

I'll ask again: How many investments would YOU make if you could lose EVERYTHING you will ever have if the investment goes bad? Probably not many -- or any, and neither would anyone else.