[atlaw]

I have to say, your vision of an ideal economic anarchy is both quaint in its miniturazation, and selective in its application.

In your vision, should individuals be insulated against liability for the debts they incur in doing business and the torts committed by the business entites they operate?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I have to say, your vision of an ideal economic anarchy is both quaint in its miniturazation, and selective in its application."

It's not anarchy in the least, it is the rule of law. Law based on property rights. I don't find property rights to be quaint. It's not at all selective, it is uniform. Everybody gets to sell their property at what they wish to sell at and buy only what they are willing to buy at. There is no guarantee though that a seller will find a buyer willing to buy at what the seller's price is, or that a buyer will find a seller willing to sell at what they are willing to pay. In order for there to be a just transaction, both parties must come to an agreement.

With antitrust, the government comes in and forces a seller to sell at conditions they do not wish to sell at. That is fascism. I prefer capitalism.

"In your vision, should individuals be insulated against liability for the debts they incur in doing business and the torts committed by the business entities they operate?"

As far as torts are concerned, that depends on how much that individual was involved in the crimes of the business. Businesses do not commit crimes, individuals do.