Negative vs. Positive Rights

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

If people would not risk their entire investment without any hope to get some of it back industry would never have started.[/quote]

No shit. That isn’t what we’re talking about though.

You’re insisting the protection a corp or LLC in this instance of limiting an owner’s liability to their INVESTMENT, isn’t right and is exploitive. Now you’re moving your goal posts. You originally said the PERSONAL assets of the own shouldn’t be shielded by business formations because “like, we don’t need da govermentz man”. Now you are using that VERY protection to try and prove with “logic” I’m wrong, when I’ve been nothing but correct this entire time.
[/quote]

Who protects the holder of an LLC from having his assets seized above the initial investment? [/quote]

Regulation aka the government. This does not mean tax payers are on the hook though.

Well then it seems to me there is no point in the LLC which was my initial argument from the get.

By taxpayers incurring the loss I mean we have to pay a bureaucracy to regulate something that could be (and for the most part is) handled by private insurance. I think we both agree there is no inherent right for a person to be protected from losing his entire fortune to a bad business decision. In the case of fraud there is already a court system in place which is mostly handled by insurance.

In the final analysis an LLC is just a piece of paper that has the backing of taxpayer supported guns to prevent litigation.

142

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
By taxpayers incurring the loss [/quote]

THEY DON’T

[quote]
I mean we have to pay a bureaucracy to regulate something that could be (and for the most part is) handled by private insurance. [/quote]

Even if private insurance companies were willing to cover business owners personal assets from business loss beyond the ability of the business to cover the cost would be astronomical to the individual owner.

[quote]
I think we both agree there is no inherent right for a person to be protected from losing his entire fortune to a bad business decision. [/quote]

I agree that there is no inherent right to protection; however, there are a number of benefits to liability protect that has zero to do with individual fortunes.

I’m done.

Say what ever you want I don’t care. You are clueless about how an LLC even works. Your ideas, and I use the term loosely, would set us back hundreds of years if not more.

143

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

If people would not risk their entire investment without any hope to get some of it back industry would never have started.[/quote]

No shit. That isn’t what we’re talking about though.

You’re insisting the protection a corp or LLC in this instance of limiting an owner’s liability to their INVESTMENT, isn’t right and is exploitive. Now you’re moving your goal posts. You originally said the PERSONAL assets of the own shouldn’t be shielded by business formations because “like, we don’t need da govermentz man”. Now you are using that VERY protection to try and prove with “logic” I’m wrong, when I’ve been nothing but correct this entire time.
[/quote]

Who protects the holder of an LLC from having his assets seized above the initial investment?[/quote]

Assuming the members of the LLC were acting on the level and there is no reason to pierce the veil, the courts will hold that the personal assets are exempt from bankruptcy proceedings as it relates to the company.

If the members signed personally, and not just as an agent of the LLC, those specific creditors can then file a claim to the personal assets of the members. But only for those debts the member signed personally for, and separate the company’s bankruptcy.

Again this just further shows you don’t know what you are speaking on. More often than not in a bankruptcy THIS IS THE CASE. The court then appoints a trustee who liquidates the business assets, and pays the creditors prorate their share of whatever is recovered. A creditor is lucky to make pennies on the dollar from an insolvent debtor through bankruptcy.

This is all assuming chapter 7 not chapter 11. 11 is different, but substantially the same concepts.

Without the protection a business entity gives over personal non-investment assets, no they wouldn’t. Most businesses fail. It’d be a fools game.

It doesn’t. Creditors don’t get something that isn’t there. If the assets of the debtor are zero after liquidation and employees and taxes are paid, creditors get zero.

In fact the only creditor that get precedent over the government getting paid are employees. So a company liquidates. Back wages are the first to be satisfied in full, then the government, after that the creditor split what is left pro-rata.

No it doesn’t. You’re trying to apply school yard Rothobardian “logic” to a well establish system that has been around, and fine tuned through precedent for lifetimes.

144

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You can be sued, but the members of an LLC can not be sued, ie, they are not personally liable for damages / losses. If DumbAss, LLC blows up a neighborhood, Mr. DumbAss the sole shareholder won’t lose his personal assets to cover damages.

[/quote]

Depends on what it was that blew up the neighborhood. My business law in this area has been quite dormant in my brain so I might be slightly off the mark, but an LLC/Corp doesn’t shield you from Tort law if you committed a crime.

Like if you knowingly sell people a product that blows up and kills them, because you own a chain of funeral homes too… You ass is going to the chair.

145

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
If something becomes profitable, it will be regulated. If something is not profitable, it will cease to exist. All innovation is private innovation, but every innovation has been either given to or taken by those with the greatest force.[/quote]

You are correct about the last statement but the point of agorism is to minimize the ability of an organization to use force; for example, if people started using crpyto-currencies there would be no way for the IRS to seize someone’s assets - not to mention the bonus feature of making the government essentially broke.[/quote]

There is a bitcoin fee. You are literally giving an organization money to use their money. Basically a use tax.

"Increasing Scrutiny

Bitcoinâ??s main benefits of decentralization and transaction anonymity have also made it a favored currency for a host of illegal activities including money laundering, drug peddling, smuggling and weapons procurement. This has attracted the attention of powerful regulatory and other government agencies such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the SEC, and even the FBI and Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In March 2013, FinCEN issued rules that defined virtual currency exchanges and administrators as money service businesses, bringing them within the ambit of government regulation. In May that year, the DHS froze an account of Mt. Gox â?? the largest Bitcoin exchange â?? that was held at Wells Fargo, alleging that it broke anti-money laundering laws. And in August, New Yorkâ??s Department of Financial Services issued subpoenas to 22 emerging payment companies, many of which handled Bitcoin, asking about their measures to prevent money laundering and ensure consumer protection."

Good luck with that whole keeping governments out of it. [/quote]

The transaction fee is very small (it changes based on supply of computing power versus the demand for transactions) and used as an incentive to keep miners honest. Most of the time servers are pooled in groups to increase the probability of solving the cryptography which requires lots of processing power. It costs money to keep the servers running 24/7.

Mt. Gox was a storing house (bank) for individual bitcoin wallets and those depositors gave access to their private keys to Mt. Gox so then they were hacked and subsequently looted. It was a mistake on the part of the depositors and the security of Mt. Gox. Really, it was unfortunate and ironic because the point of bitcoin is to be ones own bank and not need a third party to store money. This really has nothing to do with bitcoin but rather is plain and simple fraud/theft. Don’t store your wallet with or give your private keys to anyone else.

I have no doubt regulators will try their hardest but it comes down to distributed computing using really strong cryptography to keep it safe. It would require them to have our private keys to take our money.

146

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You can be sued, but the members of an LLC can not be sued, ie, they are not personally liable for damages / losses. If DumbAss, LLC blows up a neighborhood, Mr. DumbAss the sole shareholder won’t lose his personal assets to cover damages.

[/quote]

Depends on what it was that blew up the neighborhood. My business law in this area has been quite dormant in my brain so I might be slightly off the mark, but an LLC/Corp doesn’t shield you from Tort law if you committed a crime.

Like if you knowingly sell people a product that blows up and kills them, because you own a chain of funeral homes too… You ass is going to the chair. [/quote]

I was just speaking in general with the assumption business activities were on the up and up.

147

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Well then it seems to me there is no point in the LLC which was my initial argument from the get.[/quote]

You’re fucking retarded if this is a true statement in your opinion.

Not remotely close to true.

But you’re missing the entire point of allowing the fucking privilege. Jesus.

[quote]
In the final analysis an LLC is just a piece of paper that has the backing of taxpayer supported guns to prevent litigation.[/quote]

Fucking retarded.

You are the perfect example of why ancaps will never, ever be a viable political voice in any sizable population.

148

Madoff is a good example, he had to forfeit some $17B plus a 150 year prison sentence due to his fraudulent activities (His firm is an LLC if memory serves).

149

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
A free market is the exact opposite of totalitarianism.[/quote]
It certainly is.

I agree that it would. I can’t see that happening.

If a technology overpowers the existing state, the owner of that technology will become the state. All humans are fucked up, and none of us will ever permit other humans to do as they please.

In turn, a larger demand will be generated for ways to bring the above under state control.

I completely agree, but the ability of do-gooders to always do bad can never be forgotten.

150

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Forming a limited liability entity doesn’t redistribute risk to taxpayers - it shifts it to creditors who will be limited in what they can recover. Taxpayers don’t absorb the losses.

Are you ever struck by irony when you accuse people of failing logic?
[/quote]

Either you are right or countingbeans is right but you cannot both be.

Either insurance covers some of the risk or government must do it. According to cb, no one would take that risk upon himself and you seem to think government does not redistribute it at all.

Either insurance companies are fully on the hook for their losses or they are protected by taxpayers.[/quote]

Nope. The limited liability entity form shifts risk to creditors, not taxpayers. Investors can’t lose more than they invested because creditors are not permitted to sue them. Thus, to the extent creditors’ claims ultimately outstrip a company’s assets, the creditors eat the balance by accepting (willfully or not) less than 100 cents on the dollar on their claims. Taxpayers do not pay in or refund anything to the losing creditors.

Creditors agree to assume this risk as the cost of doing business.

This is basic business and common sense. Why do you know so little about either, but insist you do?

151

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Forming a limited liability entity doesn’t redistribute risk to taxpayers - it shifts it to creditors who will be limited in what they can recover. Taxpayers don’t absorb the losses.

Are you ever struck by irony when you accuse people of failing logic?
[/quote]

Either you are right or countingbeans is right but you cannot both be.

Either insurance covers some of the risk or government must do it. According to cb, no one would take that risk upon himself and you seem to think government does not redistribute it at all.

Either insurance companies are fully on the hook for their losses or they are protected by taxpayers.[/quote]

Nope. The limited liability entity form shifts risk to creditors, not taxpayers. Investors can’t lose more than they invested because creditors are not permitted to sue them. Thus, to the extent creditors’ claims ultimately outstrip a company’s assets, the creditors eat the balance by accepting (willfully or not) less than 100 cents on the dollar on their claims. Taxpayers do not pay in or refund anything to the losing creditors.

Creditors agree to assume this risk as the cost of doing business.

This is basic business and common sense. Why do you know so little about either, but insist you do?
[/quote]

I thought maybe if I put the word risk in bold a few times something would sink in. Apparently not.

152

And here is the basic problem: Lifticus is attempting to lecture on how stuff works, but as we’ve seen on this page alone, he wasn’t even aware of how limited liability entities operate. The most basic operation of the form and how it affects investors and creditors has to be explained at a kindrlergarten pace. How can you intelligently opine on the merits and disadvantages of something on which you have no knowledge? At all?

It’s comical to discuss, but ultimately boring. Moving on.

153

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
If something becomes profitable, it will be regulated. If something is not profitable, it will cease to exist. All innovation is private innovation, but every innovation has been either given to or taken by those with the greatest force.[/quote]

You are correct about the last statement but the point of agorism is to minimize the ability of an organization to use force; for example, if people started using crpyto-currencies there would be no way for the IRS to seize someone’s assets - not to mention the bonus feature of making the government essentially broke.[/quote]

Cryptocurrencies are still fiat money. That’s the problem with them. The current IRS may not be able to seize someone’s assets, but those in control of the cryptocurrencies would become the new predator.

154

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
If something becomes profitable, it will be regulated. If something is not profitable, it will cease to exist. All innovation is private innovation, but every innovation has been either given to or taken by those with the greatest force.[/quote]

You are correct about the last statement but the point of agorism is to minimize the ability of an organization to use force; for example, if people started using crpyto-currencies there would be no way for the IRS to seize someone’s assets - not to mention the bonus feature of making the government essentially broke.[/quote]

Cryptocurrencies are still fiat money. That’s the problem with them. The current IRS may not be able to seize someone’s assets, but those in control of the cryptocurrencies would become the new predator.[/quote]

Well, it’s the same with gold or any hard money though…those in control of the gold are still top of the food chain

155

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

Well, it’s the same with gold or any hard money though…those in control of the gold are still top of the food chain[/quote]

Right. It all comes down to AnCaps ignore reality and human history. When they (and Libertarians in general) aren’t busy arguing about who is more libertarian than each other, they are busy pointing out how the current “system is enslaving them”. The whole time ignoring the truth of the matter. In any governmental (or lack there of) whoever controls the guns, controls the food, therefore rules the people.

If we were still tribes of 30-50 people wandering aimless in the wild, sure this shit would work, but 300 million people living in a land of AnCapistan? Nope… Shit isn’t going to work.

156

and for the record I do consider myself more “libertarian” (note not Libertarian) than anything, especially that they are trying to adopt the “Classical Liberal” moniker.

157

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
and for the record I do consider myself more “libertarian” (note not Libertarian) than anything, especially that they are trying to adopt the “Classical Liberal” moniker. [/quote]

Hey Beans,

Selfish derail: I know you’re a CPA, are you also a CMA?

158

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
and for the record I do consider myself more “libertarian” (note not Libertarian) than anything, especially that they are trying to adopt the “Classical Liberal” moniker. [/quote]

Hey Beans,

Selfish derail: I know you’re a CPA, are you also a CMA? [/quote]

I resurrected the old T-Accountant thread.

159

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
If something becomes profitable, it will be regulated. If something is not profitable, it will cease to exist. All innovation is private innovation, but every innovation has been either given to or taken by those with the greatest force.[/quote]

You are correct about the last statement but the point of agorism is to minimize the ability of an organization to use force; for example, if people started using crpyto-currencies there would be no way for the IRS to seize someone’s assets - not to mention the bonus feature of making the government essentially broke.[/quote]

Cryptocurrencies are still fiat money. That’s the problem with them. The current IRS may not be able to seize someone’s assets, but those in control of the cryptocurrencies would become the new predator.[/quote]

Well, it’s the same with gold or any hard money though…those in control of the gold are still top of the food chain[/quote]

How does one control gold? One can be voluntarily paid in gold, or one can steal gold; in other words, one can OWN gold, but nobody can control it. It’s a naturally occurring substance. I used lifti’s word, but I probably should have come up with something better than “control.” There’s a difference, at least in my opinion, between physically controlling a currency, and being able to create currency on a whim.

160

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
If something becomes profitable, it will be regulated. If something is not profitable, it will cease to exist. All innovation is private innovation, but every innovation has been either given to or taken by those with the greatest force.[/quote]

You are correct about the last statement but the point of agorism is to minimize the ability of an organization to use force; for example, if people started using crpyto-currencies there would be no way for the IRS to seize someone’s assets - not to mention the bonus feature of making the government essentially broke.[/quote]

Cryptocurrencies are still fiat money. That’s the problem with them. The current IRS may not be able to seize someone’s assets, but those in control of the cryptocurrencies would become the new predator.[/quote]

Well, it’s the same with gold or any hard money though…those in control of the gold are still top of the food chain[/quote]

How does one control gold? One can be voluntarily paid in gold, or one can steal gold; in other words, one can OWN gold, but nobody can control it. It’s a naturally occurring substance. I used lifti’s word, but I probably should have come up with something better than “control.” There’s a difference, at least in my opinion, between physically controlling a currency, and being able to create currency on a whim. [/quote]

See Roosevelt, Franklin D, Executive Order 6102.