There've been some attacks on the concept of Corporate Limited Liability
on this list. This is an interesting defense. While I'm a fan of Gary
North, I don't have any preconceived notions about this issue. Any
comments?
Mike
(Attachment image001.gif is missing)
(Attachment image002.gif is missing)
(Attachment image003.gif is missing)
(Attachment image004.gif is missing)
(Attachment image005.gif is missing)
(Attachment image006.gif is missing)
(Attachment image007.gif is missing)
(Attachment image008.gif is missing)
(Attachment image009.jpg is missing)
Mike - Interesting article.. I think the real
contentious issue is with allowing corporations to own
property. Certainly, I can make a willful contract
with whomever I please so I don't see that as a
problem. But allowing companies to own property given
they are an abstract entity gives some credence to
allowing governments to also legally owning property.
Not good. Of course a corporation may have acquired
its property through voluntary means, which of course
is preferable.
Also, in the current US legal system as I know it, a
person (or corporation) can not contract away any
liability due to an act of negligence. I think this
has bearing on the buyer risk assumption in such cases
involving drunken commercial pilots, employees dumping
toxic waste, etc. Maybe we should look at
indemnification as a related issue as well.
cheers,
David
--- Mike Denny <mike@...> wrote:
There've been some attacks on the concept of
Corporate Limited Liability
on this list. This is an interesting defense. While
I'm a fan of Gary
North, I don't have any preconceived notions about
this issue. Any
comments?
Mike
________________________________
From: Mike Denny
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 12:28 PM
To: Mike - Drinks
Subject: Limited Liability and the Right of Contract
<snip>