This is probably true. The problem is that you rarely see these types of libertarians talk about it (though more serious ones like Hoppe do, but you rarely hear about them in mainstream discourse for obvious reasons).
When Boeing was having problems with their 737 MAX, was the Libertarian Party of Texas tweeting out "If the concept of Limited Liability for company executives and investors -- a market-distorting legal fiction created by the government -- were eliminated, these issues would be far less likely to occur because the executives and investors wouldn't want to risk bankruptcy and prison time by putting out an unsafe product"? Or were they blaming the FAA?
Well yeah, because most official Libertarian parties in America are controlled opposition, much like the GOP in their own way. Its why I prefer discussing ideas and solutions over strict adherence to ideology or party.
I can't speak for the Libertarian Party of Texas on such a specific issue.
However, the argument isn't unfamiliar to me. The very nature of a Limited Liability Company is a legal structure to protect businesses from prosecution. It exists to privilege these corporations for the benefits of concentrating wealth and power into a few hands which can be taxed and monitored more easily.
Imagine if Boeing were a sole proprietorship. That is a private company. If Boeing built a shit airplane, the company as a fictitious legal construct couldn't be sued, the owner of Boeing could be directly sued. Not only that, he'd actually have to personally sue each of the employees that fucked up. The law would actually create a fixed chain of responsibility, person after person.
Why isn't that done? Because the government first presents corporations, non-profits, and LLC's and legal fictions to protect them from lawsuits, then they tax the shit out of sole proprietorships on top of that, then they offer the largest tax breaks and programs to the largest corporations.
The system is intentionally designed to support these mass, unaccountable, fictitious legal structures. First by promising no legal accountability to corporations, second by adding burdensome legal liabilities to sole proprietorships, third by taxing the shit out of those sole proprietorships which denies any incentive to do it even if you succeed, and fourth by reducing the tax burden on corporations.
Could a government bureaucracy have something to do with this arrangement? Sure, any government oversight agency is going to support the structure I just spelled out. Getting rid of it is one first step, but they can always be replaced by another "temporary" agency later.
This is probably true. The problem is that you rarely see these types of libertarians talk about it (though more serious ones like Hoppe do, but you rarely hear about them in mainstream discourse for obvious reasons).
When Boeing was having problems with their 737 MAX, was the Libertarian Party of Texas tweeting out "If the concept of Limited Liability for company executives and investors -- a market-distorting legal fiction created by the government -- were eliminated, these issues would be far less likely to occur because the executives and investors wouldn't want to risk bankruptcy and prison time by putting out an unsafe product"? Or were they blaming the FAA?
Well yeah, because most official Libertarian parties in America are controlled opposition, much like the GOP in their own way. Its why I prefer discussing ideas and solutions over strict adherence to ideology or party.
I can't speak for the Libertarian Party of Texas on such a specific issue.
However, the argument isn't unfamiliar to me. The very nature of a Limited Liability Company is a legal structure to protect businesses from prosecution. It exists to privilege these corporations for the benefits of concentrating wealth and power into a few hands which can be taxed and monitored more easily.
Imagine if Boeing were a sole proprietorship. That is a private company. If Boeing built a shit airplane, the company as a fictitious legal construct couldn't be sued, the owner of Boeing could be directly sued. Not only that, he'd actually have to personally sue each of the employees that fucked up. The law would actually create a fixed chain of responsibility, person after person.
Why isn't that done? Because the government first presents corporations, non-profits, and LLC's and legal fictions to protect them from lawsuits, then they tax the shit out of sole proprietorships on top of that, then they offer the largest tax breaks and programs to the largest corporations.
The system is intentionally designed to support these mass, unaccountable, fictitious legal structures. First by promising no legal accountability to corporations, second by adding burdensome legal liabilities to sole proprietorships, third by taxing the shit out of those sole proprietorships which denies any incentive to do it even if you succeed, and fourth by reducing the tax burden on corporations.
Could a government bureaucracy have something to do with this arrangement? Sure, any government oversight agency is going to support the structure I just spelled out. Getting rid of it is one first step, but they can always be replaced by another "temporary" agency later.