Franklin....
What part(s) of Mr. Wood's article do you disagree with? Do you have a
different version of labor history? If so, we'd rather hear that than a
threat to leave if some happen to agree with Mr. Woods.
In an earlier message you said to me "You have my respect but not my
support. I won't support you unless you support me."
It might seem strange we don't do more politicking as we are a political
party. Maybe we should. But this is a party of principle first. While
there are probably many cases to be made for your position of "no
support", vote trading (you support me and I'll support you whether we
agree or not) isn't really what we're about at the SFLP. I can't say for
sure about other LPs around the country.
So far everyone seems to be enjoying the dialogue and its sincerity. No
matter what the outcome, Libertarians always enjoy a lively discussion.
From that perspective alone, you'd fit right in.
You asked if I considered the protection of your person and property to
be a right (protected by the courts)? And then you stated that "This is
the right that you are "alienating" when doing business with a limited
liability company."
I don't consider the protection of my person and property to be a right
protected by the courts. Rights are inalienable and not subject to what
the courts say about them. I'm responsible for my own protection as is
everyone else. This discussion is about a contractual understanding
between trading partners enforced like any other contractual
relationship. In this situation, the business states their position on
this critically important issue when the company is first organized.
The concept of limited liability is not about protecting me as a
business owner. The party most protected by limited liability is the
consumer who buys goods or services at a reduced cost. It's the way we
in transactions can measure and apply cost to the outer limits of risk.
You said "Unlimited liability would raise these insurance costs and
would cause more pressure on companies to be careful about what they
sell, which would eliminate the need for government regulations in this
area."
I'd rather the consumer made that decision rather that prohibiting them
from the option. A consumer can have as much protection as possible by
doing business with full liability sole proprietorships and
partnerships. Also, customers are free (and often do in larger business
deals) demand extra insurance protection. This isn't practical to do for
the average Joe walking in off the street and buying a pack of
cigarettes or other less pedestrian transaction. What you are proposing
would restrict sales to only those who signed contracts agreeing to give
up their rights to claim liability or making the goods or services so
expensive only rich people could buy them.
I'm not grasping the logic or the benefit of a business environment
without the possibility of limited liability organizations. The idea
that the law should outlaw this form of business doesn't seem like
freedom or a path to moving us from the current mercantilism we all
abhor to something better.
Am I missing something?
Mike