isadore;1254195 wrote:law made by the legislative branch of government and limited liability a privilege granted by government.

Once again, "limited liability" is neither a concept the govt invented nor has exclusivity to.

gut;1254254 wrote:Once again, "limited liability" is neither a concept the govt invented nor has exclusivity to.

it started by law and government action in europe and in America by state action.

isadore;1254282 wrote:it started by law and government action in europe and in America by state action.

Started by contract, enforced and precedent set in the courts.

Ever have a home inspection? Private contractor limits his liability (and usually none) with a contract.

This thread is laughable. Govt rarely works for business. There are literally millions of bankers, lawyer and accountants out there who's job exists solely to help companies minimize the impact of all these "favors" big gubmit does for them.

gut;1254310 wrote:Started by contract, enforced and precedent set in the courts.

Ever have a home inspection? Private contractor limits his liability (and usually none) with a contract.

This thread is laughable. Govt rarely works for business. There are literally millions of bankers, lawyer and accountants out there who's job exists solely to help companies minimize the impact of all these "favors" big gubmit does for them.

Oh that is right, courts are not part of the government and their decisions that set precedent are in no way tied to government. Corporations have grown because of privileges granted to them by government, based on laws passed by legislatures that are part of government. And the regulation is there because soulless, conscienceless corporations have abused workers, consumers, investors, competitors.

The regulation follows, not leads, the market. Most of what you see in corporate law has its root in private, non-public markets. You can take away the "privileges" you claim only govt can grant, and "dissolve" these companies you claim the govt created, and businesses will likely prosper, not go away.

What a convenient belief....the govt sees a best practice in private industry, makes it law, and then becomes the creator and granter of privilege. Works on the ignorant, I suppose.

Government sees the abuses of conscienceless corporations to their competitors, their investors, the workers and their consumers then establishes rules to try to prevent them from continuing. Of course that should be the right of government since it gave the privileges of economic personhood and limited liability to the corporations that allowed them to grow.

No, the govt didn't "give" them anything. The govt forces you to register from a menu of choices so it can ensure it gets its piece of the pie, and so it can control. All the govt does is take - unless you're a charity case attached to le 'ol teet.

Next you'll try to tell me public companies don't exist without the SEC, which would also be wrong.

It's not a zero-sum game, it's a net negative for corporations. Anything you perceive the govt has "given" them actually only comes about as a partial offset to what the govt takes.

Gosh government gave them privileges which allowed them to grow. Then as corporations abused workers, cheated consumers, short changed investors. corrupted politics and used unfair practices against competitors lead to regulations to protect these victims.

isadore;1254660 wrote:Gosh government gave them privileges which allowed them to grow.

Tell 'em Bam! You didn't build that!

lol, wow you are fully indoctrinated. Sad, but comical.

gut;1254674 wrote:Tell 'em Bam! You didn't build that!

lol, wow you are fully indoctrinated. Sad, but comical.

If you are competent in English you know full well that the President was talking about roads, bridges, and schools and not the business people built when he said that.

I Wear Pants;1255443 wrote:If you are competent in English you know full well that the President was talking about roads, bridges, and schools and not the business people built when he said that.

And if you're intelligent you know that the implication of what was taken out of context describes his philosophy to a 't'. You can't claim he was taken out of context when it's the overall gist of the whole speech - Obama doesn't believe in success and talent; he believes in the collective.

I Wear Pants;1255443 wrote:If you are competent in English you know full well that the President was talking about roads, bridges, and schools and not the business people built when he said that.

Among the issues with this is that if I make a ledger with positive things the government has done that helps my business (i.e. infrastructure), and compare it to the burdens it imposes, it's not within a light year of breakeven.