(Untitled)
Here's a slashdot interview with Michael Badnarik.
I think you're all likely to find something you can agree with. Perhaps multiple things.
I think you're all likely to find something you can agree with. Perhaps multiple things.
Comments 3
First, let's look at the nature of corporations. They come into existence with the grant of a government charter. They sell stock under the auspices and pursuant to the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission. In court, they are treated as "persons" with "rights" -- and for purposes of liability, their stockholders are held harmless beyond the value of their stock itself.
.... (cut) ...
We need to restore justice to the system. Stockholders are owners, and should be liable for the consequences of that ownership like any other owners. I have no doubt that the market will come up with "portfolio insurance" to protect the stockholders from ruinous claims, but that in itself will provide a market check on unrestrained, unaccountable growth -- companies which act irresponsibly will find that their stockholders can't buy, or have to pay unreasonably high, insurance premiums, and therefore aren't interested in having the stock.
That's straight socio-anarchism, a la Noam Chomsky. My ( ... )
Reply
Yeah, I figured that one would get your attention.
My impression is that this attitude is held by maybe 2% of LP membersI think you underestimate the extent to which libertarians understand the mistake of granting special privilege to corporations ( ... )
Reply
I indeed hope that I am seriously underestimating liberatians on the corporate privilege issue. It is obvious from reading Badnarik's column that I have underestimated them on this issue already.
Reply
Leave a comment