Nobody is forced to deal with a limited liability company.
Consider this: sometimes, building owners take loans for part of the purchase price of the building. If they have equity in the building, and if they’re willing to pay a slight premium, the bank will often lend them the money with “no recourse”. What this is means is: the bank is agreeing that in case the borrower cannot repay, they can foreclose on the building, but they cannot ask the borrower to make up any additional deficiency, if the building sells for less that the loan amount. In other word, the borrower’s liability is limited to his stake in the building, and no more. Nothing wrong with that. The government will “protect” such a contract, but it is not the government that is granting this limited liability: it is the bank (in this case).
Similarly, consider if you are dealing with some business and they tell you that their liability is limited to the extent of the assets held in the name of the corporation, without recourse to other assets of the owners. You, as the counter party, are free to tell them you will not deal on those terms. A “limited liability corporation” is simply making such a declaration to the world at large. Those are the terms on which they will do business, and others are free to tell them to go to hell, or to accept this condition.
It does not follow that limited liability of the company ought to shield the personal assets of officers who perpetrate frauds, or some other criminal act.
(Search should bring up a few threads. This is a favorite libertarian/anarchist/communist topic.)
Wait, so a bank has to be the one to grant them limited liability? I never knew that.
I always thought that the “double taxation” was the government taxing a corporation for insurance purposes. Ie: many corporations pay for the mistakes of a few corporations. Wow. I guess this is another case of the government consuming, without producing.
Got into a discussion related to this issue on another forum and the response was below:
“A corporation is an amelgam, it is not human, it is an entity, it does not breath air, its sole purpose and designation is to make profit for its survival. The supreme courts ruling of providing a so called equal voice to a corporation is paramont to saying that a robot/computer is human”.
Leave it to the Left to spin the overturning of an unconstitutional law into “providing” something for corporations, as if it were some kind of new right “granted” to them. All the Supreme Court did was restore the status quo ante.
I’d be appalled if any member of Citizens United, the CEO included, was barred from political speech.
The corporation itself has no individual right, nor does any memeber or group of members have the right to speak for all those involved. Furthermore the right to free speech is very different from the right to spend unlimited money.
Money is not speech.
Corporations are not individuals.
If money is speech, then some have more speech than others… The first amendment was not designed to turn our nation into Animal Farm.
Let’s say you, as a person, have the right to act. Some people can act more than others. Therefore, you have more freedom than others? If anything is like Animal Farm (which, by the way, was based on socialism’s evil), it’s this person’s manipulation of words and concepts.
See how liberals use false logic to twist things around?
Your rights are your right to your life, your liberty, the fruits of your labors, and the pursuit of happiness.
You are sovereign over your person and property. You can act over your person and property, and nobody can violate those rights, which requires the initiation of force. If you are free to act over your person and property, this means you are free to speak, since it is your person you speak with. And this violates nobody’s rights, since you are not initiating force nor the threat of force against another by doing so.
So, in a way, freedom of speech is a derivative right, which comes from the freedom to act over ones person and property. If I work and earn a bigger microphone, then I can reach more people.
But, be aware, having a bigger microphone doesn’t make your ideas better. If you are selling a bad product, spreading the news far and wide will have a negative, not a positive effect. As an example, the msm has been losing audience and they have a very big microphone.
Conversely, having a small microphone and a great idea your ideas still can spread far and wide. Think of Ayn Rand’s novels and how they were advertised largely by word of mouth.