> Is it possible that the same person who can build a company from zero to 100 people isn’t qualified and / or wanting to take it from 100 to 1000 people? Shoul

> Is it possible that the same person who can build a company from zero to 100 people isn’t qualified and / or wanting to take it from 100 to 1000 people? Shouldn’t it be her right to sell her asset, and start something new? Well, they don't have to sell the company to start something new. They can hire/appoint someone to take care and essentially only roughly supervise them which really doesn't take much time. The only difference is really the ownership part. I still get your point and yeah, it is a disadvantage. But individual freedom has to be balanced against the needs of the whole society too. > The only defensible logic is to let the owner do what they want. Otherwise it’s authoritarian. Not really. Look, the owners of companies benefit from society as well. They get infrastructure, stability, especially laws and their enforcement and so on. This is not a given. The society doesn't let random people do what they want, e.g. steal from the owner of the company. Would you call that authoritarian? Certainly not. Neither is putting boundaries of what you can do with the stuff you own.