Corporations are People?

[Loren Pechtel]

TBH, I would like to see all advertising, not just political advertising, treated in the same way. You reckon I need to hear about your new treatment for haemorrhoids? If you don't prioritise that need enough to get off your arse and come tell me about it in person, then I don't agree.

If nothing else, such a scheme would provide loads of work for door-to-door salesmen. And would give the public a much needed right of reply.

And we are back to pornography.

And what about advertising the consumer wants? There's a pack of ads that normally comes in Tuesday's mail--mostly the local grocery stores. We definitely look at it, as well as the online version from the one store we frequent that doesn't put an ad in that pack.

And various companies that I have bought from before send ads. I have filters directing them into a folder and I check the folder for interesting things. But, please, what is with the recent garbage of not using the word "clearance"?? I have no issue with clearance sales, but if I've looked at their clearance offerings I'm not interested in another "sale" of the same stuff that I've already picked over.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is explicitly about allowing corporations to restricts rights of individuals, and nothing else. When someone complains about the rights of corporations being infringed, they generally mean they want corporations to be free of consequences of what they say (when it promotes white Christian nationalism) and to withhold services (when it promotes white Christian nationalism).

Free of consequences? Consumers most certainly can reject a company based on what the company says.

Only if there are other options! Have you not noticed the consolidation of corporations the last three decades? Never mind rural areas where there really isn't any competition.

Citizens United is about whether they can say it at all.

Bullshit. For a couple reasons.

1) Because they ain't saying it. They pay an advertiser lots of money to create an emotional ad full of logical fallacies and then that gets shown on TV. If a corporation wants to come forward and provide a press release, they have that ability. Instead, money to liars that create lying ad that is put on tv and internet.

2) Corporations are pieces of paper. The people that work for a corporation are the ones with opinions. And they can shout them till the cows come home.

And I have a hard time with the notion that a group of people do not have a right possessed by all individuals of the group.

Odd, because most individuals can't afford ads on TV.

Hi, I'm Loren Pechtel and I'm here to tell you why you should for Kamilla Harris...

Then there is the whole, why can't corporations vote if individuals can vote.

 

[ZiprHead]

Then there is the whole, why can't corporations vote if individuals can vote.

Good question.

Lumpy, if corporations are just like people and have free speech rights do you think they have a right to vote?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1a) Look at what has happened with the auto industry--a two-tiered system where the newer people will never earn what the older people get. Why is such an agreement even legally tolerable??

That was something that was demanded by the auto manufacturers. The UAW no longer agrees to that.

Because the UAW was insisting on rates that the companies couldn't afford.

 

[ZiprHead]

1a) Look at what has happened with the auto industry--a two-tiered system where the newer people will never earn what the older people get. Why is such an agreement even legally tolerable??

That was something that was demanded by the auto manufacturers. The UAW no longer agrees to that.

Because the UAW was insisting on rates that the companies couldn't afford.

How do you know they couldn't afford it? Did you just blindly believe them?

 

[bilby]

TBH, I would like to see all advertising, not just political advertising, treated in the same way. You reckon I need to hear about your new treatment for haemorrhoids? If you don't prioritise that need enough to get off your arse and come tell me about it in person, then I don't agree.

If nothing else, such a scheme would provide loads of work for door-to-door salesmen. And would give the public a much needed right of reply.

And we are back to pornography.

How the hell did you get that from that???

I am reminded of the old joke about the guy who gets a Rorschach test from his Psychologist. Each time the doc shows him an ink blot, he says "That's a man and a woman fucking". The doctor says "I suspect you may be obsessed with sex", and the guy responds, "Me?? You're the one with the big book of pornographic pictures!".

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

This is explicitly about allowing corporations to restricts rights of individuals, and nothing else. When someone complains about the rights of corporations being infringed, they generally mean they want corporations to be free of consequences of what they say (when it promotes white Christian nationalism) and to withhold services (when it promotes white Christian nationalism).

Free of consequences? Consumers most certainly can reject a company based on what the company says.

Only if there are other options! Have you not noticed the consolidation of corporations the last three decades? Never mind rural areas where there really isn't any competition.

Citizens United is about whether they can say it at all.

Bullshit. For a couple reasons.

1) Because they ain't saying it. They pay an advertiser lots of money to create an emotional ad full of logical fallacies and then that gets shown on TV. If a corporation wants to come forward and provide a press release, they have that ability. Instead, money to liars that create lying ad that is put on tv and internet.

2) Corporations are pieces of paper. The people that work for a corporation are the ones with opinions. And they can shout them till the cows come home.

And I have a hard time with the notion that a group of people do not have a right possessed by all individuals of the group.

Odd, because most individuals can't afford ads on TV.

Hi, I'm Loren Pechtel and I'm here to tell you why you should for Kamilla Harris...

Then there is the whole, why can't corporations vote if individuals can vote.

The bolded bit relates to something I was thinking about yesterday. There are journalists, commentators, guests, and TV station celebrities that frequently appear on TV to give their thoughts and opinions about various topics. A normal person can't do that. So just what is the term free speech about? It is a theoretical right people have, but that in practice is very limited. About the best they can do is appear in a protest, or on a forum like this where hardly anyone sees what they "say", or write a letter to a newspaper (again limited coverage).

One thing it is possible to do, but it takes a lot of work, is to start a group with people of similar views (which is how political parties start), and hope your spokesperson can gain access to TV or "big media". But again this is likely to only be very local and very limited.
Another of course is youtube and podcasts. Again mixed results are expectable.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

HARTMANN DISHONESTY SCORE (scoring update, June 10 - July 21)

Thom Hartmann's bias about Citizens United -- KEEPING SCORE of his honesty
See previous posts: Sunday at 6:43 AM #129 & Tuesday at 2:47 PM #132 -- (Hartmann's problem telling the truth that this case was about FEC censorship, i.e., 2008 suppressing the Hillary film promoted by Citizens United Inc.)


SCORE
June 10 - July 14
10: 4-0-0
11: 1-0-0
12: 0-0-0
13: omitted from the survey
16: 3-0-0
17: omitted from the survey
18: 2-0-0
19: 2-0-0
20: 0-0-0
23: 0-0-0
24: 4-0-1
25: 1-0-0
26: 2-0-0

July
14: 1-0-0
15: omitted from survey
16: 1-0-0
17: 2-0-0
18: 2-0-0
21: 2-0-0
22: to be omitted from survey
___________
27-0-1 total to date, batting average still .000
27 times at bat, 0 hits, one base-on-balls*

The survey/test resumes Wednesday July 23.

Most of the "at bats" recently have been recorded messages, not Hartmann speaking live. These are short announcements, which are repeated 2 or 3 times a week. They say Citizens United made corporations into people, which they were not before 2010, or also they say the Court in this case made it legal to bribe politicians. Which all is false, as the Court never changed corporations into "people" when they were "not people" before, and it specifically makes bribery illegal, "bribery" meaning there's a quid pro quo. But meanwhile, each time there is no mentioning that the case was about censorship and whether the FEC has power to suppress political propaganda ("electioneering communications") during the election period.

The Court case was about whether the FEC can legitimately censor political propaganda, or suppress the circulation of "electioneering communications" (in this case suppression of the Hillary film) -- it's dishonest to totally omit any mention of this, while at the same time saying the hyperbole that it was about legalizing bribery and about turning corporations into "people" and also lying that corporations were "not people" prior to this decision.


the scoring and terminology

*baseball terminology: The terms "batting average" and "hits" are legitimate here. However "times at bat" and "base-on-balls" are technically wrong. There's no good term for the 3rd number in the 27-0-1 score, and the first number (27) might better be called "plate appearances" -- so only the "batting average" term should be taken strictly. A "hit" would be any time he's totally honest and admits that the case was about censorship and suppressing political propaganda from being published or circulated (the 2nd number). On this he's 0 for 27 so far. If he can't ever be honest, then the batting average remains .000 no matter what the other numbers are. But the 3rd number is appropriate to add, if he quotes the Court opinion showing some of its reasoning (so 27-0-1 is slightly more honest than 27-0-0 would be). But he generally just sticks to the hyperbole about legalizing bribery of politicians and about making corporations into "people" and ignoring the objective facts of the case, about the censorship or abridgment of 1st Amendment rights which this case was about.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

falsehoods about "corporations"


Your point is lost if you keep having to say falsehoods in order to make it.

the slogan "Corporations are not people" ----
​

If you want to explain your slogan "corporations are not people" you at least must give us some facts about corporations and be able to state these facts without requiring falsehoods as part of your explanation. So far no one is giving any facts to explain what this slogan means.


(continued from previous Wall of Text)

. . . it [corporation] is a legal structure created by the state, with privileges . . .

No, the state did not create the corporation, but only added some change to an already-existing entity or group which then gained limited liability, which any group can gain by just incorporating.

To say the state "created" the corporation is false just as it's false to say the state "created" a labor union. Just because the unions are put under gov't power, through the labor laws, does not mean that the state created the union. No, that entity already existed, even before applying for recognition under the labor laws. And the earlier unions (100 or so years ago) existed even before there were labor laws. These laws haven't CREATED unions, but only had gov't step in and make changes to the unions (which were already there as a problem to fix), to impose some new rules upon them. And it's the same when a business chooses to incorporate.

It's obvious that groups like labor unions and corporations and some other groups developed some problems, coming into conflict of some kind, creating conflict between differing interest groups. And even if Laissez-faire has value, there's a need for government to intervene to apply some rules, not just allow the conflicts to persist and cause chaos -- some rules are necessary in the society, when there is conflict, and the various groups have legitimate interests and cannot just be abolished or taken over by the government.

So such groups existed first, already, before those conflicts, and only then, AFTERWARDS, did the government step and impose some new rules. So it did not create those groups. They were already there, created earlier, spontaneously by the members or in some way independently of the government.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[NoHolyCows]

falsehoods about "corporations"


Your point is lost if you keep having to say falsehoods in order to make it.

the slogan "Corporations are not people" ----
​

If you want to explain your slogan "corporations are not people" you at least must give us some facts about corporations and be able to state these facts without requiring falsehoods as part of your explanation. So far no one is giving any facts to explain what this slogan means.


(continued from previous Wall of Text)

. . . it [corporation] is a legal structure created by the state, with privileges . . .

No, the state did not create the corporation, but only added some change to an already-existing entity or group which then gained limited liability, which any group can gain by just incorporating.

To say the state "created" the corporation is false just as it's false to say the state "created" a labor union. Just because the unions are put under gov't power, through the labor laws, does not mean that the state created the union. No, that entity already existed, even before applying for recognition under the labor laws. And the earlier unions (100 or so years ago) existed even before there were labor laws. These laws haven't CREATED unions, but only had gov't step in and make changes to the unions (which were already there as a problem to fix), to impose some new rules upon them. And it's the same when a business chooses to incorporate.

It's obvious that groups like labor unions and corporations and some other groups developed some problems, coming into conflict of some kind, creating conflict between differing interest groups. And even if Laissez-faire has value, there's a need for government to intervene to apply some rules, not just allow the conflicts to persist and cause chaos -- some rules are necessary in the society, when there is conflict, and the various groups have legitimate interests and cannot just be abolished or taken over by the government.

So such groups existed first, already, before those conflicts, and only then, AFTERWARDS, did the government step and impose some new rules. So it did not create those groups. They were already there, created earlier, spontaneously by the members or in some way independently of the government.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

Incorporation isn’t a mere tweak—it creates an entirely new legal person out of an informal group. Before you file your articles, you’re just a collection of people. The moment the state grants you a charter, a separate entity with its own rights, liabilities, and privileges comes into existence. That corporate shell simply didn’t exist before state approval. You can’t conjure “limited liability” or perpetual life out of thin air—only the state can do that. End of story.

NHC

 

[laughing dog]

falsehoods about "corporations"


Your point is lost if you keep having to say falsehoods in order to make it.

the slogan "Corporations are not people" ----
​

If you want to explain your slogan "corporations are not people" you at least must give us some facts about corporations and be able to state these facts without requiring falsehoods as part of your explanation. So far no one is giving any facts to explain what this slogan means.


(continued from previous Wall of Text)

. . . it [corporation] is a legal structure created by the state, with privileges . . .

No, the state did not create the corporation, but only added some change to an already-existing entity or group which then gained limited liability, which any group can gain by just incorporating.

To say the state "created" the corporation is false just as it's false to say the state "created" a labor union. Just because the unions are put under gov't power, through the labor laws, does not mean that the state created the union. No, that entity already existed, even before applying for recognition under the labor laws. And the earlier unions (100 or so years ago) existed even before there were labor laws. These laws haven't CREATED unions, but only had gov't step in and make changes to the unions (which were already there as a problem to fix), to impose some new rules upon them. And it's the same when a business chooses to incorporate.

It's obvious that groups like labor unions and corporations and some other groups developed some problems, coming into conflict of some kind, creating conflict between differing interest groups. And even if Laissez-faire has value, there's a need for government to intervene to apply some rules, not just allow the conflicts to persist and cause chaos -- some rules are necessary in the society, when there is conflict, and the various groups have legitimate interests and cannot just be abolished or taken over by the government.

So such groups existed first, already, before those conflicts, and only then, AFTERWARDS, did the government step and impose some new rules. So it did not create those groups. They were already there, created earlier, spontaneously by the members or in some way independently of the government.

Corporations did not exist until gov’t created that legal firm of entity. So your analysis is based on a false premise.

 

[scombrid]

I wish I could incorporate me into a bunch of different entities so that some of the entities could do illegal shit while the physical non-fictional me could be shielded from consequences. Kind of like Nathan Albers. One of his corporations actively trafficked in illegal labor and got caught for it. Now he is getting mega millions to build an ICE detention facility. Corporation gets all of the rights of a person but without any of the responsibilities.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I wish I could incorporate me into a bunch of different entities so that some of the entities could do illegal shit while the physical non-fictional me could be shielded from consequences. Kind of like Nathan Albers. One of his corporations actively trafficked in illegal labor and got caught for it. Now he is getting mega millions to build an ICE detention facility. Corporation gets all of the rights of a person but without any of the responsibilities.

Your comments are a little bit deceiving. Or maybe you didn't read the entire story. Corporations won't shield a person if they break the law. This is a very large misunderstanding of the law. I'm not an expert in this case, but he was a co-owner in the company that broke the law. Yes, the company hired illegals and profited from them. The partner and person responsible for the breaking of the law pled guilty, spent three years in jail. Abers held a minority position in the company and claims that he was a passive owner (not in the decision making for the company). So he was not held responsible.

​

 

[Elixir]

The partner and person responsible for the breaking of the law pled guilty, spent three years in jail.

The Trump Corp defrauded most everyone who came in contact with it for decades and the owner(s) got rewarded with untold billions for their crimes.

 

[Harry Bosch]

falsehoods about "corporations"


Your point is lost if you keep having to say falsehoods in order to make it.

the slogan "Corporations are not people" ----
​

If you want to explain your slogan "corporations are not people" you at least must give us some facts about corporations and be able to state these facts without requiring falsehoods as part of your explanation. So far no one is giving any facts to explain what this slogan means.


(continued from previous Wall of Text)

. . . it [corporation] is a legal structure created by the state, with privileges . . .

No, the state did not create the corporation, but only added some change to an already-existing entity or group which then gained limited liability, which any group can gain by just incorporating.

To say the state "created" the corporation is false just as it's false to say the state "created" a labor union. Just because the unions are put under gov't power, through the labor laws, does not mean that the state created the union. No, that entity already existed, even before applying for recognition under the labor laws. And the earlier unions (100 or so years ago) existed even before there were labor laws. These laws haven't CREATED unions, but only had gov't step in and make changes to the unions (which were already there as a problem to fix), to impose some new rules upon them. And it's the same when a business chooses to incorporate.

It's obvious that groups like labor unions and corporations and some other groups developed some problems, coming into conflict of some kind, creating conflict between differing interest groups. And even if Laissez-faire has value, there's a need for government to intervene to apply some rules, not just allow the conflicts to persist and cause chaos -- some rules are necessary in the society, when there is conflict, and the various groups have legitimate interests and cannot just be abolished or taken over by the government.

So such groups existed first, already, before those conflicts, and only then, AFTERWARDS, did the government step and impose some new rules. So it did not create those groups. They were already there, created earlier, spontaneously by the members or in some way independently of the government.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

Incorporation isn’t a mere tweak—it creates an entirely new legal person out of an informal group. Before you file your articles, you’re just a collection of people. The moment the state grants you a charter, a separate entity with its own rights, liabilities, and privileges comes into existence. That corporate shell simply didn’t exist before state approval. You can’t conjure “limited liability” or perpetual life out of thin air—only the state can do that. End of story.

NHC

Just so that we're clear, how would you define "limited liability" regarding LLCs?

 

[Harry Bosch]

The partner and person responsible for the breaking of the law pled guilty, spent three years in jail.

The Trump Corp defrauded most everyone who came in contact with it for decades and the owner(s) got rewarded with untold billions for their crimes.

Well, the law applies to all people equally except for those who have better attorneys and Trump.

 

[NoHolyCows]

falsehoods about "corporations"


Your point is lost if you keep having to say falsehoods in order to make it.

the slogan "Corporations are not people" ----
​

If you want to explain your slogan "corporations are not people" you at least must give us some facts about corporations and be able to state these facts without requiring falsehoods as part of your explanation. So far no one is giving any facts to explain what this slogan means.


(continued from previous Wall of Text)

. . . it [corporation] is a legal structure created by the state, with privileges . . .

No, the state did not create the corporation, but only added some change to an already-existing entity or group which then gained limited liability, which any group can gain by just incorporating.

To say the state "created" the corporation is false just as it's false to say the state "created" a labor union. Just because the unions are put under gov't power, through the labor laws, does not mean that the state created the union. No, that entity already existed, even before applying for recognition under the labor laws. And the earlier unions (100 or so years ago) existed even before there were labor laws. These laws haven't CREATED unions, but only had gov't step in and make changes to the unions (which were already there as a problem to fix), to impose some new rules upon them. And it's the same when a business chooses to incorporate.

It's obvious that groups like labor unions and corporations and some other groups developed some problems, coming into conflict of some kind, creating conflict between differing interest groups. And even if Laissez-faire has value, there's a need for government to intervene to apply some rules, not just allow the conflicts to persist and cause chaos -- some rules are necessary in the society, when there is conflict, and the various groups have legitimate interests and cannot just be abolished or taken over by the government.

So such groups existed first, already, before those conflicts, and only then, AFTERWARDS, did the government step and impose some new rules. So it did not create those groups. They were already there, created earlier, spontaneously by the members or in some way independently of the government.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

Incorporation isn’t a mere tweak—it creates an entirely new legal person out of an informal group. Before you file your articles, you’re just a collection of people. The moment the state grants you a charter, a separate entity with its own rights, liabilities, and privileges comes into existence. That corporate shell simply didn’t exist before state approval. You can’t conjure “limited liability” or perpetual life out of thin air—only the state can do that. End of story.

NHC

Just so that we're clear, how would you define "limited liability" regarding LLCs?

Imagine you and I decide to make a documentary, pooling our time, energy, and whatever savings we have. If we stay a loose partnership and someone sues over the film, our personal assets—your car, my savings—could be seized to cover any judgment. Now picture us filing paperwork to become an LLC. Overnight, that legal shield springs up: any debt or lawsuit stays confined to the company’s bank account, and our homes, cars, and personal savings remain untouched.

That “limited liability” doesn’t come from nature—it’s a special privilege the state grants when it recognizes our venture as a separate legal “person.” That’s exactly why corporations aren’t the same as ordinary clubs or associations. They’re legal fictions endowed with powers and protections real people don’t automatically enjoy.

NHC

 

[Harry Bosch]

falsehoods about "corporations"


Your point is lost if you keep having to say falsehoods in order to make it.

the slogan "Corporations are not people" ----
​

If you want to explain your slogan "corporations are not people" you at least must give us some facts about corporations and be able to state these facts without requiring falsehoods as part of your explanation. So far no one is giving any facts to explain what this slogan means.


(continued from previous Wall of Text)

. . . it [corporation] is a legal structure created by the state, with privileges . . .

No, the state did not create the corporation, but only added some change to an already-existing entity or group which then gained limited liability, which any group can gain by just incorporating.

To say the state "created" the corporation is false just as it's false to say the state "created" a labor union. Just because the unions are put under gov't power, through the labor laws, does not mean that the state created the union. No, that entity already existed, even before applying for recognition under the labor laws. And the earlier unions (100 or so years ago) existed even before there were labor laws. These laws haven't CREATED unions, but only had gov't step in and make changes to the unions (which were already there as a problem to fix), to impose some new rules upon them. And it's the same when a business chooses to incorporate.

It's obvious that groups like labor unions and corporations and some other groups developed some problems, coming into conflict of some kind, creating conflict between differing interest groups. And even if Laissez-faire has value, there's a need for government to intervene to apply some rules, not just allow the conflicts to persist and cause chaos -- some rules are necessary in the society, when there is conflict, and the various groups have legitimate interests and cannot just be abolished or taken over by the government.

So such groups existed first, already, before those conflicts, and only then, AFTERWARDS, did the government step and impose some new rules. So it did not create those groups. They were already there, created earlier, spontaneously by the members or in some way independently of the government.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

Incorporation isn’t a mere tweak—it creates an entirely new legal person out of an informal group. Before you file your articles, you’re just a collection of people. The moment the state grants you a charter, a separate entity with its own rights, liabilities, and privileges comes into existence. That corporate shell simply didn’t exist before state approval. You can’t conjure “limited liability” or perpetual life out of thin air—only the state can do that. End of story.

NHC

Just so that we're clear, how would you define "limited liability" regarding LLCs?

Imagine you and I decide to make a documentary, pooling our time, energy, and whatever savings we have. If we stay a loose partnership and someone sues over the film, our personal assets—your car, my savings—could be seized to cover any judgment. Now picture us filing paperwork to become an LLC. Overnight, that legal shield springs up: any debt or lawsuit stays confined to the company’s bank account, and our homes, cars, and personal savings remain untouched.

That “limited liability” doesn’t come from nature—it’s a special privilege the state grants when it recognizes our venture as a separate legal “person.” That’s exactly why corporations aren’t the same as ordinary clubs or associations. They’re legal fictions endowed with powers and protections real people don’t automatically enjoy.

NHC

I did not say that limited liability comes from nature. Limited liability protects the owners (shareholders) in case of losses when their business fails. Shareholders are liable for the amount of their investment in the company. Without this protection, publicly traded companies wouldn't exist. Having said that, shareholders are often asked to personally guaranty a debt. I personally guaranty a building loan for an LLC.

But limited liability will not protect a person if they directly break the law.

 

[NoHolyCows]

falsehoods about "corporations"


Your point is lost if you keep having to say falsehoods in order to make it.

the slogan "Corporations are not people" ----
​

If you want to explain your slogan "corporations are not people" you at least must give us some facts about corporations and be able to state these facts without requiring falsehoods as part of your explanation. So far no one is giving any facts to explain what this slogan means.


(continued from previous Wall of Text)

. . . it [corporation] is a legal structure created by the state, with privileges . . .

No, the state did not create the corporation, but only added some change to an already-existing entity or group which then gained limited liability, which any group can gain by just incorporating.

To say the state "created" the corporation is false just as it's false to say the state "created" a labor union. Just because the unions are put under gov't power, through the labor laws, does not mean that the state created the union. No, that entity already existed, even before applying for recognition under the labor laws. And the earlier unions (100 or so years ago) existed even before there were labor laws. These laws haven't CREATED unions, but only had gov't step in and make changes to the unions (which were already there as a problem to fix), to impose some new rules upon them. And it's the same when a business chooses to incorporate.

It's obvious that groups like labor unions and corporations and some other groups developed some problems, coming into conflict of some kind, creating conflict between differing interest groups. And even if Laissez-faire has value, there's a need for government to intervene to apply some rules, not just allow the conflicts to persist and cause chaos -- some rules are necessary in the society, when there is conflict, and the various groups have legitimate interests and cannot just be abolished or taken over by the government.

So such groups existed first, already, before those conflicts, and only then, AFTERWARDS, did the government step and impose some new rules. So it did not create those groups. They were already there, created earlier, spontaneously by the members or in some way independently of the government.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

Incorporation isn’t a mere tweak—it creates an entirely new legal person out of an informal group. Before you file your articles, you’re just a collection of people. The moment the state grants you a charter, a separate entity with its own rights, liabilities, and privileges comes into existence. That corporate shell simply didn’t exist before state approval. You can’t conjure “limited liability” or perpetual life out of thin air—only the state can do that. End of story.

NHC

Just so that we're clear, how would you define "limited liability" regarding LLCs?

Imagine you and I decide to make a documentary, pooling our time, energy, and whatever savings we have. If we stay a loose partnership and someone sues over the film, our personal assets—your car, my savings—could be seized to cover any judgment. Now picture us filing paperwork to become an LLC. Overnight, that legal shield springs up: any debt or lawsuit stays confined to the company’s bank account, and our homes, cars, and personal savings remain untouched.

That “limited liability” doesn’t come from nature—it’s a special privilege the state grants when it recognizes our venture as a separate legal “person.” That’s exactly why corporations aren’t the same as ordinary clubs or associations. They’re legal fictions endowed with powers and protections real people don’t automatically enjoy.

NHC

I did not say that limited liability comes from nature. Limited liability protects the owners (shareholders) in case of losses when their business fails. Shareholders are liable for the amount of their investment in the company. Without this protection, publicly traded companies wouldn't exist. Having said that, shareholders are often asked to personally guaranty a debt. I personally guaranty a building loan for an LLC.

But limited liability will not protect a person if they directly break the law.

You’re exactly right. That shield only exists because the state grants it—it caps your loss at what you’ve invested, which is why stock markets flourish. But the moment you personally guarantee a loan or break the law, you step outside that legal shell and face the consequences yourself. That exception proves the rule: limited liability isn’t a natural right—it’s a state-conferred privilege, and it only protects you so long as you stay within the boundaries the law sets.

NHC

 

[scombrid]

I wish I could incorporate me into a bunch of different entities so that some of the entities could do illegal shit while the physical non-fictional me could be shielded from consequences. Kind of like Nathan Albers. One of his corporations actively trafficked in illegal labor and got caught for it. Now he is getting mega millions to build an ICE detention facility. Corporation gets all of the rights of a person but without any of the responsibilities.

Your comments are a little bit deceiving. Or maybe you didn't read the entire story. Corporations won't shield a person if they break the law. This is a very large misunderstanding of the law. I'm not an expert in this case, but he was a co-owner in the company that broke the law. Yes, the company hired illegals and profited from them. The partner and person responsible for the breaking of the law pled guilty, spent three years in jail. Abers held a minority position in the company and claims that he was a passive owner (not in the decision making for the company). So he was not held responsible.

​

Yeah. He limited his liability alright. It's a good trick if you've got the money and lawyers to make it happen. Like the Sacklers and countless hard rock mining operators over the years that get to walk away from a huge mess with plenty of money in their pockets. Paper me gets to do a lot of dirty stuff as long as I can keep just enough legal distance to keep the actual dirt off of my flesh.