Dear Franklin,
It seems we are no longer discussing Prop 75. While not easy to digest from a libertarian perspective, I say the fact that government mandates union membership to be hired by government...and on top of that the "public service" workers can still have the right to quite en mass while striking makes it at least reasonable for one to vote for this for no other reason than to knock the union leadership off their high horse....not exactly libertarian but it seems we can't agree about what that means anyway.
It's clear to everyone I know and work with that the security they have (my liability) when working with my C-corp or any other limited liability company, short of criminal behavior, stops at the company door. If most people don't realize that or wish it was different or didn't agree to it in advance doesn't mean that it's force, government regulation, deceit or anything else. This is information that's commonly understood, taught in school, available on websites all over the place. It's something people should be smart enough to know and inquire about when making business decisions. If people want me to take more risk, there are plenty of more expensive alternatives to my business model. It appears to me that my customers have chosen the reduced security of my limited liability business in exchange for the reduced cost of doing business with me. I could easily increase my ability to accept liability but at a cost my customers don't want to pay beyond my $2M per occurrence liability insurance policy.
The fact that someone doesn't know that taking something from a store without paying is stealing doesn't put the burden on the store owner to have a signed agreement with a purchaser that they understand their obligation to pay unless pre-arranged credit is part of the transaction. The same holds true of someone buying something from someone in a limited liability form. There's no reason to suggest that the seller is obligated to get an agreement from the purchaser that they agree to the limited liability in the transaction in advance. Of course the buyer is perfectly free to attempt to get that if they want. But I don't see where it's an obligation of the seller to make it a part of the transaction. I also think it's silly and naïve for someone to believe that they can get a complete assumption from sellers without their obligation to pay for it. Perhaps something like this would work....Apple $1 - Apple with unlimited liability insurance $100.
Am I missing something here? And what does Mr. Ellerman's paper have to do with this subject?
Mike