"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.
Let me know when you get to my comment #197.