Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;A.J., post: 1475522, member: 35316&quot;]What&#039;s being lost in this discussion is the other side of the coin: liability.&nbsp; Nobody forces the public to purchase a widgets that the company produces, that is true.&nbsp; So the CEO of a company has legitimately earned his income.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p><i>But</i> the government did forcibly preclude the public to waive its right to compensation for injuries caused by the company.&nbsp; The government forcibly limited the liability of the CEO, completely absolving him of any liability for wrongdoing.&nbsp; This is not unlike the government forcing the public to buy the company&#039;s product, just inverted.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>If person A hires a driver to deliver a shipment of widgets, and the driver gets in an accident and injuries B, then B can sue A for compensation.&nbsp; But if A is CEO of an incorporated company, in the exact same situation, B is out of luck because A has a protection agreement with the government to limit his liability.&nbsp; Person A may be originally earning his money fairly, but A is using an unfair protection arrangement to keep that money in situations where A would otherwise be subject to liability. </p><p><br /></p><p>The problem here is one of fairness. But salary caps and communistic solutions like that are not the answer.&nbsp; The answer is personal accountability.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in