But do me a favor... Take some time, let the debate roll around in your head a bit and then come back and actually watch the movie.
"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."
That is not limited liability. That is risk analysis to protect itself and it's investors. You are mixing concepts.
"As I have shown, individuals who act as officers or directors of corporations WILL be held accountable if they commit a crime."
You have shown no such thing. You pointed out an article where the corporate veil was pierced. That is a rare occurrence and does not have anything to do with the questions at hand. Nor did it result in criminal penalties. Only investor damage is prosecuted criminally, or situations that can truly be isolated to a single individual with deliberate malintent, which is virtually impossible.
"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."
It is not unlimited. It is limited to the courts decision on how much harm you caused. Just as you cannot artificially decrease liability, only shift it, it does not artificially go up just because you want to prove a point.
"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."
No, moral hazards are. They are the root of all evil. Moral hazards are created by government, because nothing else has the power. The moral hazards that cause corporatism are lack of accountability and responsibility which are generated from ll and personhood.
The Philosophy Of Liberty -