... is absorbed in business costs.
A bank knows that 3% of its loans are going to default. So, you pay a fraction of a percent higher to absorb that cost.
As I have shown, individuals who act as officers or directors of corporations WILL be held accountable if they commit a crime.
But if we are talking about monetary damages over something that is a valid disagreement, I don't see how anyone can defend unlimited liability in that case.
I am against crony corporatism. I am against big government and their favors. I am against taxation in principle. But I am also against unlimited liability as the default position. I think that would do more harm than good, but it is a theoretical debate.
What is not a theoretical debate, IMO, is the idea that limited liability, PER SE, is the cause of crony corporatism. No, big government is the cause, and that is where the focus should be.
I have said what I have to say. It was good debating with you.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: