> The system would be much better if we actually enforced it.
Right. But ...
> Which you guys refuse to demand from officials, because you've bought in to the notion that what they're doing is legal.
No. Many of us demand that but nobody listens because they know they don't have to.
Realize that making the laws unenforceable is the intent. This is what I mean by patching vs replacing. Let's say we managed to get a few hundred bankers arrested for 2008. Then what? They change the rules slightly and next time we don't.
Instead we need to repeal all limited liability for any group. That way in the future it's not us vs them, it's us vs us, which is winnable.
And I agree that's it's already illegal. But it's constitutionally illegal, we don't grant government the right to create a privileged class and yet it did. And if our ancestors were dumb enough to sign off on this, we don't have to be.
We, the people, don't have to be bound to the muck that is our common law. The government is ours to charter as we wish and if huge swaths of it aren't working they can be thrown out wholesale. If we get bogged down in trying to navigate our(!) ruleset we've already lost the game.
Limited liability for corporations isn't unconstitutional.
However, Im very interested to hear how you propose to make an economy work without limited liability.
I dont think you have anything like a plan for that, and have confused the behavior of a few large corportations with corporatioms in general, while simultaneously missing the actual social structures causing the problems you list and the benefits of corporations.
> However, Im very interested to hear how you propose to make an economy work without limited liability.
Fwiw, I'd be interested to hear how you think the current system could work if we didn't come along and bail the economy out every few years by backing these bad business debts with public money.
> corporations in general
The sole defining characteristic of a corporation is limited liability. Everything else a corporation is, is inherent it being a group of people.
Further, all benefits we enacted corporate law to provide are now handled much more directly by bankruptcy statutes and welfare. You don't have to risk everything to engage in a business anymore.
> simultaneously missing the actual social structures causing the problems you list and the benefits of corporations.
So many benefits you couldn't list them all in the space provided? You favor a system where I pay for the crimes your business commits so the burden of proof is yours.
Right. But ...
> Which you guys refuse to demand from officials, because you've bought in to the notion that what they're doing is legal.
No. Many of us demand that but nobody listens because they know they don't have to.
Realize that making the laws unenforceable is the intent. This is what I mean by patching vs replacing. Let's say we managed to get a few hundred bankers arrested for 2008. Then what? They change the rules slightly and next time we don't.
Instead we need to repeal all limited liability for any group. That way in the future it's not us vs them, it's us vs us, which is winnable.
And I agree that's it's already illegal. But it's constitutionally illegal, we don't grant government the right to create a privileged class and yet it did. And if our ancestors were dumb enough to sign off on this, we don't have to be.
We, the people, don't have to be bound to the muck that is our common law. The government is ours to charter as we wish and if huge swaths of it aren't working they can be thrown out wholesale. If we get bogged down in trying to navigate our(!) ruleset we've already lost the game.