As far as I can tell, a corporation is fundamentally just a scaled-up limited partnership that has no general partners. The crucial question is: would capital formation be threatened by a requirement for each corporation to have at least one liable general partner? I suspect that it wouldn't. If corporations are equivalent to scaled-up limited partnerships, then the traditional leftist argument against limited shareholder liability evaporates -- unless they are against limited liability for limited partners. I don't see how they could be, since that in turn seems equivalent to a transferable contract that pays a share of firm income and is a particular sort of claim against the firm's assets upon liquidation. There's nothing wrong with that under libertarian theory.
These opinions warrantied for the lifetime of your brain.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Re: Public Feedback - Plank 2.6
Our platform from 1990 (or maybe 1988) to 2004 said "limited liability for shareholders and limited partners. However, I share Marc's concern. I could live with the vague 2006 language, or I could support something like this: