> Im sorry, but your position just sounds like uninformed radicalism.

Don't be sorry for labeling my position, just don't do it. If you had a defensible position you could defend it without name calling.

> Most corporations manage to act ethically;

Inasmuch as it is profitable to do so, sure. It rarely remains profitable to do so, however.

Could you point out some examples of successful corporations acting ethically when it was not profitable to do so?

> corporations (big and small) have non-profit motives

Examples?

> and limited liability is pretty much required to have a functional economy.

Is it? Iceland put their bankers in jail and recovered more quickly from the subprime mortgage crisis than anyone. Limited liability allows economies to function for the rich, but that's a rather narrow view of functioning. The stock market is not the economy.

You cannot support policing and limited liability--limited liability means that policing has no teeth.

I labeled it as seeming such because I was hoping you'd elaborate, rather than baldly assert what are radical positions.

Before I answer your question, could you define what you mean by successful? I know that sounds facetious, but I mean it seriously -- most people mean, say, Walmart when I would consider a profitable local grocer to be successful, even without growth.

Examples of not-profit driven corporations would be any of the not-for-profit entities, for starters. Then you can get in to social purpose corps, c-corps where the shareholders focus on structural stability and long-term value preservation, etc. It seems that you're limiting your idea of corporations to being large, traded on Wall St corporations -- which I agree are problematic. Where I think we disagree is on the solution: I prefer smaller, localized corporations while you want to abolish them entirely (which I think inflicts a great deal of collateral damage, taking the idea to a net negative).

Limited-liability is purely the notion that assets not given to or gained from the corporation aren't subject to covering its debts just because you own part of the corporation. It has nothing to do with shielding executives from fraud or criminal prosecution, nor shielding the corporation's assets from unlimited liability.

The reasom we didn't put bankers in jail (like we should have) is that they didnt want to allege multi-thousand person conspiracies and RICO act the banks. That's because the political will isn't there, and not because the bankers were shielded from liability. I think we should use RICO against a lot of corporate malfeasance -- the law is literally designed to go after the leaders of large criminal organizations and seize related assets.

I disagree, very sharply, that the notion of limited liability means policing has no teeth. We're merely too light in seizing corporate assets in repinse to damages (eg, fines are too small) and we're too reluctant to prosecute crimes from business executives. But neither of these has to do with limited liability.

I would also point out that in my experience, limited liability helps a TON of small businesses, who would shut down if the owner's entire assets were required to be at risk because of employees. Myself included: I wouldn't run a consultancy (of myself and one friend) if giving "bad" advice (in the determination of a questionably informed and often emotionally swayed jury) meant my entire life could be taken away. It's not worth the risk to specialize and trade services under that framework -- the risk from courtroom whims is too high. (I do support public directories of bonded professions, however. That gives the client a good idea of how much risk they should take on because of your decisions. The problem is this presents barriers to entry.)

Or is your position that I should only be allowed to offer my services under the aegis of a large firm which would prevent personal liability to me as an employee? That seems far worse and more classist than the present system, which offers the immunity to anyone with $200/year.