pull down to refresh

201 sats \ 2 replies \ @kr OP 9 Feb \ parent \ on: Skin In The Game culture
My perspective on this is that liability needs a larger role. There are perfectly good reasons to provide goods and services that you wouldn't use yourself, but you're right that it creates an incentive problem.
What do you think the effect of eliminating limited liability for corporations (which has been the standard way of operating a business since the 1800s) would be on the US economy?
One could make a pretty good case that limitations to liability enabled better capital formation and more rapid innovation in America
write
preview
500 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 9 Feb
One could make a pretty good case that limitations to liability enabled better capital formation and more rapid innovation in America
That was the justification at the time at, least. I don't privilege economic growth over property rights protections.
If liability protections were repealed it would have to conform to the general standard that if something was legal when it was done, it cannot be made retroactively illegal. So, companies would not be on the hook for prior activities.
We'd see an enormous increase in the usage of liability insurance and an immediate recall of innumerable products that producers know are more harmful than they've disclosed.
Over time, there would be precedent built up that would provide producers protection against facing the same baseless suits repeatedly. To some extent, that will recreate an element of current liability protections.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 9 Feb
Not for Philip Morris and other tobacco companies
reply