> Why? This is not an axiom, it's a conclusion. Defend the premise. My basic premise is that shareholders do not have the tools to protect themselves from (to

> Why? This is not an axiom, it's a conclusion. Defend the premise. My basic premise is that shareholders do not have the tools to protect themselves from (to use inciting language) predatory management. Sometimes it looks like it works perfectly. Google seems to be doing just fine with a dual class arrangement and not all shares having the same voice. We have certain restrictions on freedom all the time. You may not consent to die* for example. I am not very good at explaining but the idea is that freedom of speech and freedom to carry arms have restrictions imposed on them. Even freedom to privacy is not absolute. I don't know what the legal words mean in practice but from what I've read even habeas corpus has the limitation of "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it". The point is that if all these rights are in some way capped, why can't the right to earn money and spend be capped as well? OK, I haven't answered your question so far. I don't have a good answer with formal proof. I just think an effective income cap is possible within our ethical/moral framework. * well this one is changing but I guess you could argue that the wording can be you cannot consent to die without adequate safeguards to make sure you know what you are consenting to.