Why the politics IJ? Libertarians are all about leaving us alone and we will leave you alone to do what you want. Very much in line with the liberal ACLU platform. We just feel that Government is here to serve us but not provide for, or dictate to us.
Funny how liberal’s lose track of where they came from.
Libertarians would agree with the ACLU about half the time on issues since the ACLU tends to be very liberal. Libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative so they tend to agree with both parties on many issues. This article has many flaws…being a libertarian I’m currently at work paying for the mistakes of both parties more and more each day. I may write a rebuttal to some of this nonsense but I’m not sure that the readership is high enough here to warrant it and I’m on my bosses dime right now so I can’t do it now. Hoping for better articles going forward. Thanks.
I used to think the same thing about the ACLU, because I based my opinion of them off only headlines I saw about them. But I have found that they stick to their principles very rigidly, they just don’t make headlines when they defend the civil liberties of right-wingers. I’m a libertarian and I bet I agree with them more than 90% of the time.
That’s funny, I’ve found exactly the opposite to be true. On topics from the “Paycheck Fairness Act” to VAWA to the campus “rape” controversy to net neutrality forcing Walter Polovchak to leave the US, ACLU takes the anti-freedom position just about every time, especially when it can screw a right-winger. I quit the ACLU for this more than 30 years ago, and have never been tempted to rejoin.
Before you label me a right-winger, I’ll add that I left the NRA for very similar reasons.
Compromise is how you get what we’ve always gotten. I’m through doing it.
Did you read the article? Libertarians, IMO, are awesome and they are a party to their own. However, there is a dichotomy between social liberties and economic liberties. Oftentimes, people confuse one with the other–and that goes for all political affiliations.
Also, this article is from Bloomberg and not the opinion of IJ.
“Imagine, if you would, that by buying and holding
the share of a firm for 10 minutes, you thereby
subjected yourself to seizure of all your goods to
satisfy potential lawsuit judgments”
We don’t have to imagine that.
There are 60 million Americans who are subject to unlimited liability, since their personal assets are collateral to whatever debts and liabilities their H.O.A. corporation creates — whether they be internal junk fees created by industry attorneys or external judgments.
As a corporation, an H.O.A. is a defective product.
And there are over 300,000 of these H.O.A. corporations in the United States today — a supply-driven number that has been growing for decades. We could be looking at another housing crisis that nobody is addressing when these things start going bankrupt.
Rather than being criticised for not protecting the personal assets of their members, H.O.A. corporations are praised by conservatives and libertarians as examples of privatization at work, and as a benefit of trading liberty for the (false) promises of security and property values.
If you want to see the Libertarian Party and Republican Party vision for America, look at H.O.A. corporations.
Imagine, if you would, that by buying and holding the share of a firm for 10 minutes, you thereby subjected yourself to seizure of all your goods to satisfy potential lawsuit judgments — even if those judgments involved behavior that involved no legal liability at the time of the acts.
This is a strawman argument. The real effect of eliminating the corporate veil would be to convert the corporate form to another form already in common use: the limited partnership (in which there are typically a small number of general partners — who have management authority but also unlimited liability — and a larger number of limited partners, who have neither and can only lose what they have invested).
Beyond that, I agree that various Congressional innovations such as the product liability laws would need to go, or at least need to change. But I don’t buy that the tort law system would need reform (beyond, of course, loser-pays).
Indeed, one of the best arguments for unlimited liability is the banking crisis of 2008 (and the crisis situation that most of the world’s largest banks are still in today as a result). It seems axiomatic to me that anyone whom you trust with your life savings, if he screws up and loses them, ought to have to risk handing over his own.
Why the politics IJ? Libertarians are all about leaving us alone and we will leave you alone to do what you want. Very much in line with the liberal ACLU platform. We just feel that Government is here to serve us but not provide for, or dictate to us.
Funny how liberal’s lose track of where they came from.
Libertarians would agree with the ACLU about half the time on issues since the ACLU tends to be very liberal. Libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative so they tend to agree with both parties on many issues. This article has many flaws…being a libertarian I’m currently at work paying for the mistakes of both parties more and more each day. I may write a rebuttal to some of this nonsense but I’m not sure that the readership is high enough here to warrant it and I’m on my bosses dime right now so I can’t do it now. Hoping for better articles going forward. Thanks.
I used to think the same thing about the ACLU, because I based my opinion of them off only headlines I saw about them. But I have found that they stick to their principles very rigidly, they just don’t make headlines when they defend the civil liberties of right-wingers. I’m a libertarian and I bet I agree with them more than 90% of the time.
That’s funny, I’ve found exactly the opposite to be true. On topics from the “Paycheck Fairness Act” to VAWA to the campus “rape” controversy to net neutrality forcing Walter Polovchak to leave the US, ACLU takes the anti-freedom position just about every time, especially when it can screw a right-winger. I quit the ACLU for this more than 30 years ago, and have never been tempted to rejoin.
Before you label me a right-winger, I’ll add that I left the NRA for very similar reasons.
Compromise is how you get what we’ve always gotten. I’m through doing it.
“Funny how liberal’s lose track of where they came from.”
Yes, it’s also a little sad.
The modern definition of a liberal is someone who has good intentions, while the Latin word “liber” which it was derived from means freedom.
To quote Milton Friedman, “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.'”
Did you read the article? Libertarians, IMO, are awesome and they are a party to their own. However, there is a dichotomy between social liberties and economic liberties. Oftentimes, people confuse one with the other–and that goes for all political affiliations.
Also, this article is from Bloomberg and not the opinion of IJ.
“Imagine, if you would, that by buying and holding
the share of a firm for 10 minutes, you thereby
subjected yourself to seizure of all your goods to
satisfy potential lawsuit judgments”
We don’t have to imagine that.
There are 60 million Americans who are subject to unlimited liability, since their personal assets are collateral to whatever debts and liabilities their H.O.A. corporation creates — whether they be internal junk fees created by industry attorneys or external judgments.
As a corporation, an H.O.A. is a defective product.
And there are over 300,000 of these H.O.A. corporations in the United States today — a supply-driven number that has been growing for decades. We could be looking at another housing crisis that nobody is addressing when these things start going bankrupt.
Rather than being criticised for not protecting the personal assets of their members, H.O.A. corporations are praised by conservatives and libertarians as examples of privatization at work, and as a benefit of trading liberty for the (false) promises of security and property values.
If you want to see the Libertarian Party and Republican Party vision for America, look at H.O.A. corporations.
This is a strawman argument. The real effect of eliminating the corporate veil would be to convert the corporate form to another form already in common use: the limited partnership (in which there are typically a small number of general partners — who have management authority but also unlimited liability — and a larger number of limited partners, who have neither and can only lose what they have invested).
Beyond that, I agree that various Congressional innovations such as the product liability laws would need to go, or at least need to change. But I don’t buy that the tort law system would need reform (beyond, of course, loser-pays).
Indeed, one of the best arguments for unlimited liability is the banking crisis of 2008 (and the crisis situation that most of the world’s largest banks are still in today as a result). It seems axiomatic to me that anyone whom you trust with your life savings, if he screws up and loses them, ought to have to risk handing over his own.