Eliminate dividend tax, AND limited liability....?

[The_Rorschach]

This was entirely too long, so I'm editing everything but my main points.


"is it a good sign that investment in the American economy runs parallel with small time gambling? Don't you think a lot of the corporate crime that you are very well aware of would perhaps have been, or will be lessened were smal time investors more educated on what they were doing?"

Probably Kev, actually, I'll even grant this am almost definately. . .But the Government has no right to dictate laws based upon making people do what's good for them, on a completely unrelated topic, this is why I am against anti-drug laws. However, I do not lobby against them because, sadly, I think our public is too irresponsible to be trusted with the means to chemically alter their own state of mind safely. Anyway, here is a quote to explain my position best:

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."
-- John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty", 1859


"We're talking about averting corporate crime and being fair. . ."

But see, thats just it. Capitalism isn't fair, it is a system based entirely upon relative inequalities. Corporate corruption, as we see it, boils down to another form of competition. Once one company bribes an elected official, all must do it. It sets a standard, the only advantage lies in finding an exploitable politician, see what I'm saying? I don't agree with it, I don't support it, but I realize that in the world we live in, its inevitable. The more laws you make restricting corporations, the more deft they will be in finding ways around them. Its a cat and mouse game, essentially, corruption is inherent in the system.


"They have small investment, and can't afford to lose it. Wouldn't no limited liability perhaps create that kind of reciprocity on a broader scale?"

Definately, but it becomes a matter of, is the government the public's nanny, and I hope the answer is no. The more responsibility for people the government takes upon itself, the less accountability individuals themselves will show.

"And, btw, I think he goes beyond merely venture in the article, gets into value of negative stock, etc., I think he's arguing for a revolutionizing of the entire system."

Well, maybe I'm being close minded, but I think its a bit late for that.

"But their business IS a service, and it's often granted on a chartered promise to provide that service. What better way to hold them to thaty promise than to have their owners REALLY involved?"

Yes but Kev, if they desired to be involved, they would be. Why must we manufacture artifical concern where it does not exist?

"This to me is responsible behavior, and wouldn't it be great if everyone had incentive to do the same?"

Never expect me to harmonize with Nader and Chomsky in the future, but I agree, stockholders should assert their right to corporate involvement and management, but I believe it should be because they desire it, not because they are forced to.

Whats worse? Having a system with Limited Liability where the stockholder may lose out, or revoking it, and possibly ending up with a system relient upon apathetical investors? Neither one seems ideal. . .