Replies

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.

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

"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."

Exactly the opposite. Removing the liability sheild from the collectivist shareholders is a move towards a less collectivist society. By removing their protections, collectivism will take a hit. I believe that ephedrine would be pulled from the shelves voluntarily if these legal protections were removed, and the collectivist shareholders could be liable for the deaths and damage to society that their product causes. This would actually NEGATE the need for further laws, and further expansion of law enforcement (collectivist action on the part of society "socialism").

Corporate collectivism leads to protectionist activity on the part of society through socialist legislation. Removing the collectivist protection of corporation would help to remove society's impetus for further regulation, laws, and expansion of government.

Remember. It was the expansion of government through the authoring of protective laws that created the modern corporation. What I'm calling for is actually a repeal or scaling-down of protectionist legislation in this regard.