5 ms·

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

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
- unishark 6y ago
  > But liability is a creation of government through law, just as much as limitations on liability are. Except, liability implements that innate sense of "wrongness" you and the other poster referred to, while limits on liability violate it. So in that sense one is justice (however flawed or approximate it may be in implementation) and one is injustice. But my statement was even simpler than that. The limitation of that liability transfers it to an abstract construction (called a corporation) we just invented. Let's call it a "person" for dramatic effect(after all SCOTUS did). You can either hold a real physical person liable for an injustice they committed, or you can hold an imaginary person liable. There's a difference.
bawolff 6y ago
Liability is the government trying to model "wrongness", not wrongness itself. There are certainly wrongs that can be comitted that you are not liable for, and there are probably things that you are liable for that aren't "wrong"
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

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
unishark 6y ago
> But liability is a creation of government through law, just as much as limitations on liability are. Except, liability implements that innate sense of "wrongness" you and the other poster referred to, while limits on liability violate it. So in that sense one is justice (however flawed or approximate it may be in implementation) and one is injustice. But my statement was even simpler than that. The limitation of that liability transfers it to an abstract construction (called a corporation) we just invented. Let's call it a "person" for dramatic effect(after all SCOTUS did). You can either hold a real physical person liable for an injustice they committed, or you can hold an imaginary person liable. There's a difference.

bawolff 6y ago

Liability is the government trying to model "wrongness", not wrongness itself. There are certainly wrongs that can be comitted that you are not liable for, and there are probably things that you are liable for that aren't "wrong"

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]