3 ms·

I’ve thought about this a fair bit. The idea of companies being a firewall for liability to protect individuals seems…off? Companies don’t make decisions, indiv

by lumb63 3y ago

I’ve thought about this a fair bit. The idea of companies being a firewall for liability to protect individuals seems…off? Companies don’t make decisions, individuals do. Certainly there is some utility to the idea of limiting liability, but our current system seems to me to afford too much benefit to those running corporations.

appplication 3y ago
It feels off because it makes no sense and is a completely biased system towards a small group of people. Ultimately this is just more class divide. Corporate entities and the legal protection they provide are accessible to only the wealthy and elite. They are another mechanism behind which the wealthy can run afoul of the law and the entity absorbs the negative repercussions while passing through all of the profits.
- andrewpolidori 3y ago
  This just isn't true though. Do you mean to say thay legal remedies are more accessible to the rich? Every single small business owner benefits from the liability protections of corporations. If my business burns down and it's not fraud or something then I am not personally liable, nor should I be.
  - yau8edq12i 3y ago
    Your business burning down isn't the same as you, as (I assume) ceo of your company, acting knowingly in a way that causes death and illness to other people. This thread is about the fact that limited liability shouldn't protect you from the second scenario. Your comment is off topic.
    - andrewpolidori 3y ago
      > Corporate entities and the legal protection they provide are accessible to only the wealthy and elite. This is the part of the previous comment to which I was responding, giving just one example of how it's not the case. Limited Liability corporations protect business owners of all wealth levels. Just correcting a patently false claim. I understand your concern about thread topic, but it's just not really applicable to my point above.
      - asadotzler 3y ago
        Your point above was not topical and only served to derail the conversation or gaslight the people who you mislead with it.
        NoPicklez 3y ago
        I don't think so, I think it was topical just perhaps not in favour of your view. The person they were replying to and to which their point related to, was very much narrowing down and exaggerating corporate entities to a "small group of people" of the "wealthy and elite". While these larger corporations limit larger amounts of liability, most people can create a business and have it as a company, giving them limited liability. Yes, large corporations have the money and resources to better limit their liability than a smaller corporation. They weren't disagreeing with that person, but providing a more balanced view in which liability limitations benefit companies of all sizes, not just larger ones.
  - stonogo 3y ago
    Why would anyone believe that legal remedies are not more accessible to the rich? That's the foundation of the cash bail system, among many, many other differences.
generic92034 3y ago
Is that limited liability in the US really that general? Why were James Robert Liang and Oliver Schmidt serving a sentence in prison?
- andrewpolidori 3y ago
  In general, it's not a protection from gross negligence and/or fraud. The problem is that in cases like these it's extremely difficult to prove such a thing, especially considering it's over many decades and potentially dozens of people. There's also a bit of practical concerns where criminal prosecutions don't want to pick cases that are tough to win as it'll be resource intense to pursue them. Of course like the Volkswagen situation you reference (in Germany) where the corporation operates may impact criminal prosecution.

by lumb63 3y ago

appplication 3y ago

It feels off because it makes no sense and is a completely biased system towards a small group of people. Ultimately this is just more class divide. Corporate entities and the legal protection they provide are accessible to only the wealthy and elite. They are another mechanism behind which the wealthy can run afoul of the law and the entity absorbs the negative repercussions while passing through all of the profits.

andrewpolidori 3y ago
This just isn't true though. Do you mean to say thay legal remedies are more accessible to the rich? Every single small business owner benefits from the liability protections of corporations. If my business burns down and it's not fraud or something then I am not personally liable, nor should I be.
- yau8edq12i 3y ago
  Your business burning down isn't the same as you, as (I assume) ceo of your company, acting knowingly in a way that causes death and illness to other people. This thread is about the fact that limited liability shouldn't protect you from the second scenario. Your comment is off topic.
  - andrewpolidori 3y ago
    > Corporate entities and the legal protection they provide are accessible to only the wealthy and elite. This is the part of the previous comment to which I was responding, giving just one example of how it's not the case. Limited Liability corporations protect business owners of all wealth levels. Just correcting a patently false claim. I understand your concern about thread topic, but it's just not really applicable to my point above.
    - asadotzler 3y ago
      Your point above was not topical and only served to derail the conversation or gaslight the people who you mislead with it.
      - NoPicklez 3y ago
        I don't think so, I think it was topical just perhaps not in favour of your view. The person they were replying to and to which their point related to, was very much narrowing down and exaggerating corporate entities to a "small group of people" of the "wealthy and elite". While these larger corporations limit larger amounts of liability, most people can create a business and have it as a company, giving them limited liability. Yes, large corporations have the money and resources to better limit their liability than a smaller corporation. They weren't disagreeing with that person, but providing a more balanced view in which liability limitations benefit companies of all sizes, not just larger ones.
- stonogo 3y ago
  Why would anyone believe that legal remedies are not more accessible to the rich? That's the foundation of the cash bail system, among many, many other differences.

generic92034 3y ago

Is that limited liability in the US really that general? Why were James Robert Liang and Oliver Schmidt serving a sentence in prison?

andrewpolidori 3y ago
In general, it's not a protection from gross negligence and/or fraud. The problem is that in cases like these it's extremely difficult to prove such a thing, especially considering it's over many decades and potentially dozens of people. There's also a bit of practical concerns where criminal prosecutions don't want to pick cases that are tough to win as it'll be resource intense to pursue them. Of course like the Volkswagen situation you reference (in Germany) where the corporation operates may impact criminal prosecution.