5 ms·

>>Liability is as much a creation of government as corporations are. 100% incorrect In fact corporations are a government created constructed with the express

by syshum 6y ago

>>Liability is as much a creation of government as corporations are. 100% incorrect In fact corporations are a government created constructed with the expressed purpose of Limiting liability of the shareholders (owners) for what the corporation does in an effort to increase investment capital. People would be less likely to invest freely if they were personally liable. Business Structures like corporations are like most other government regulations in that they LIMIT not create liability. From the EPA, to OHSA they all taken over the liability and they alone are the arbitrators of "acceptable" and individuals actual damages do not matter

chaosite 6y ago
OK, so you agree that corporations a government created construct. Is it such a leap that liability is also a government created construct?
- svrb 6y ago
  Okay, so you agree that 1 is an odd number. Is it such a leap that 2 is also an odd number? Your two statements are entirely independent.
bawolff 6y ago
You can have unlimited liability corporations, but that is beside the point. All legal concepts are government created fictions. That includes everything from corporations to parking tickets. Why do you think corporations are government created concept but liability isnt?
- unishark 6y ago
  I don't get why people are making this case. I don't think the idea of a C corp belongs in quite the same league as the idea that murder is wrong. Reductionism can be useful for argument but can also go too far and lose the point.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > I don't think the idea of a C corp belongs in quite the same league as the idea that murder is wrong. Wrongness (subjectively, at least; let's avoid the question of objective morality) exists independent of government, and independent of liability. But liability is a creation of government through law, just as much as limitations on liability are. Which is why government has the power to limit liability; if liability was independent of government, government would also not be able to limit it.
    - syshum 6y ago
      If liability does not exist outside of government then there is nothing for the government to limit, it would just be called liability, not limited liability. Why would government create something then proceed to limit the very thing they created, that make no sense It is limited liability because liability existed before the government, then the government came in to limit it
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > If liability does not exist outside of government then there is nothing for the government to limit, it would just be called liability, not limited liability. No,the premise is wrong. Government existed, and created liability, before government also created liability, so when government created limited liability, liability did exist to limit, even though that existence was not independent of government. > It is limited liability because liability existed before the government No, it 's called limited liability because liability existed before the limitation, not because liability existed before government. Just like the FISA limits on government surveillance are called limits on government surveillance because government surveillance existed before FISA, but not because government surveillance existed before government.
        syshum 6y ago
        Of course government surveillance did not exist before government, however surveillance certainly did, and rules put in place to limit government surveillance highlight this state, so that is a poor example
- syshum 6y ago
  >>All legal concepts are government created fictions. This is often the diverging point between a libertarian outlook on the world, and an authoritarian one. To the Authoritarian all laws are just social constructs created by governments, thus it is all subjective and there is no objective truth or unethical laws To libertarians like myself we believe in the Lockean concept of natural rights, where by laws and governments are erected by man to protect those natural rights and any government that goes beyond that goal is Authoritarian and unethical. To summarize Frédéric Bastiat "The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties;" Ethical Governments are formed to enforce this law, these natural rights, to provide a common defense force of a persons natural rights. Ethical Governments are not formed to control and regulate all aspects of society at all levels and on all subjects
  - bawolff 6y ago
    That doesn't make a lot of sense. If you believe that there is some sort of natural rights that laws should reflect, than you believe that you can have good laws and bad laws. This implies laws are social constructs (that attempt to model some sort of semi-objective moral truth). If laws were not a social construct but objective rules, it would follow that there is no such thing as a bad law as they are the ground moral truth by basically fiat (which i would call the authortarian view)
    - syshum 6y ago
      What, I have read your comment multiple time and I can not make any sense from it. I have no idea how you get from me expressing support for the basic idea of natural human rights to "there is no such thing as a bad law". Of course there still could be bad law and object moral truth. Those laws would be immoral and we have all kinds of unethical and immoral laws today on the books. Many protests and riots have been done recently due to many of these immoral laws I have no idea how you got from A to B in your comment

by syshum 6y ago

chaosite 6y ago

OK, so you agree that corporations a government created construct. Is it such a leap that liability is also a government created construct?

svrb 6y ago
Okay, so you agree that 1 is an odd number. Is it such a leap that 2 is also an odd number? Your two statements are entirely independent.

bawolff 6y ago

You can have unlimited liability corporations, but that is beside the point. All legal concepts are government created fictions. That includes everything from corporations to parking tickets. Why do you think corporations are government created concept but liability isnt?

unishark 6y ago
I don't get why people are making this case. I don't think the idea of a C corp belongs in quite the same league as the idea that murder is wrong. Reductionism can be useful for argument but can also go too far and lose the point.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > I don't think the idea of a C corp belongs in quite the same league as the idea that murder is wrong. Wrongness (subjectively, at least; let's avoid the question of objective morality) exists independent of government, and independent of liability. But liability is a creation of government through law, just as much as limitations on liability are. Which is why government has the power to limit liability; if liability was independent of government, government would also not be able to limit it.
  - syshum 6y ago
    If liability does not exist outside of government then there is nothing for the government to limit, it would just be called liability, not limited liability. Why would government create something then proceed to limit the very thing they created, that make no sense It is limited liability because liability existed before the government, then the government came in to limit it
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > If liability does not exist outside of government then there is nothing for the government to limit, it would just be called liability, not limited liability. No,the premise is wrong. Government existed, and created liability, before government also created liability, so when government created limited liability, liability did exist to limit, even though that existence was not independent of government. > It is limited liability because liability existed before the government No, it 's called limited liability because liability existed before the limitation, not because liability existed before government. Just like the FISA limits on government surveillance are called limits on government surveillance because government surveillance existed before FISA, but not because government surveillance existed before government.
      - syshum 6y ago
        Of course government surveillance did not exist before government, however surveillance certainly did, and rules put in place to limit government surveillance highlight this state, so that is a poor example
syshum 6y ago
>>All legal concepts are government created fictions. This is often the diverging point between a libertarian outlook on the world, and an authoritarian one. To the Authoritarian all laws are just social constructs created by governments, thus it is all subjective and there is no objective truth or unethical laws To libertarians like myself we believe in the Lockean concept of natural rights, where by laws and governments are erected by man to protect those natural rights and any government that goes beyond that goal is Authoritarian and unethical. To summarize Frédéric Bastiat "The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties;" Ethical Governments are formed to enforce this law, these natural rights, to provide a common defense force of a persons natural rights. Ethical Governments are not formed to control and regulate all aspects of society at all levels and on all subjects
- bawolff 6y ago
  That doesn't make a lot of sense. If you believe that there is some sort of natural rights that laws should reflect, than you believe that you can have good laws and bad laws. This implies laws are social constructs (that attempt to model some sort of semi-objective moral truth). If laws were not a social construct but objective rules, it would follow that there is no such thing as a bad law as they are the ground moral truth by basically fiat (which i would call the authortarian view)
  - syshum 6y ago
    What, I have read your comment multiple time and I can not make any sense from it. I have no idea how you get from me expressing support for the basic idea of natural human rights to "there is no such thing as a bad law". Of course there still could be bad law and object moral truth. Those laws would be immoral and we have all kinds of unethical and immoral laws today on the books. Many protests and riots have been done recently due to many of these immoral laws I have no idea how you got from A to B in your comment