Originally Posted by
Steven Douglas
The real difference is whether or not a veil is involved, and whether individual liability is transparent. A collective of individuals, like a limited partnership, each with a name on the line, all retain their rights as individuals, regardless of their pooled resources. However, any collective that is owned and controlled by individuals, but viewed as a single artificial "person" in eyes of the law (i.e., a corporation with a corporate veil), with liability that is not tied to the personal liability of the owners/shareholders, is the "collective" I'm referring to. With a corporation, only criminal activity could cause a piercing of the veil (i.e., personal accountability and liability kicks in, with everyone's personal assets on the line) - otherwise, corporations operate as a fictitious "person" (immortal, no less) in the eyes of the law. So they exist as a matter of privilege, and not right.
However, as a matter of principle, there is NO collective - even a collective of two - which I believe should receive any kind of artificial advantage from the law. A perfect example of that is a marriage, and laws that give tax or any other artificial advantages to married people that two single individuals cannot enjoy alone. Collectives already have natural advantages over individuals. I don't deny them that. That is the power of association as a matter of right. However, no collective of more than one person should ever enjoy an ARTIFICIAL advantage that is not automatically enjoyed by any one person.
While I do not believe that collectives comprised of individuals (real persons facing real risks and individual consequences) should ever be penalized for pooling resources, neither should they be given artificial preference over individuals. Corporations, on the other hand, and other collectives which "shield" their owners, are fair game, as they do not/should not, exist as a matter of right, but privilege only.
Connect With Us