LOL! I'm all for the Peter-Paul game. I'm an unabashed capitalist PIG (and a modestly successful one, at that). The current situation only worries me in that I am a nationalist, and as such, would prefer to see American Peters and Pauls stay firmly ahead of those in other nations (mutual survival and prosperity qualifies as a worthy goal in my book). I'm also rather fond of our form of governance that allows us to play the Peter-Paul game in a delightful and entertaining fashion. I'd rather like future generations of Americans to have the same opportunity to engage in our national past-time. ;)
Now we approach the crux of the matter. Whether it is removing the shield from liability of shareholders, or banning the manufacture of "ephedrinates," you are suggesting a course of action that requires a greater level of collectivism1. Yet in your mind, "The modern multi-national corporation is a form of collectivism." [emphasis added]
Personally, I am curious to see what word you would use to describe the method of achieving the outcome you seek. Steve Forbes' distinction between "collectivists" and "free-marketers" is central to his essay, and he probably couldn't imagine anyone who would disagree with his terminology. He would be astounded to discover that, according to you, he got it completely backward: the free-marketers are the collectivists.
_____
1col·lec·tiv·ism
Function: noun
: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control