> And why the hell would anyone want a job where a mistake results in personal ruin?

People will do nearly anything if the price is right.

solidsnack9000 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

The most reckless will, of course; but most people won't -- they just won't do it.

Corporations evolved the liability structure they have today so that large undertakings, where many people have to work together and where the bad deeds of a small number of those people could sink the undertaking, were something that regular -- people who can't self insure -- could be a part of, as investors, managers, staff, &c, &c.

Limited liability may make accountability too narrow; but blanket personal liability makes it far too broad. It's not a solution for running a large, complex economy in a more accountable way.

▲

bigbuppo 3 days ago | parent [-]

And 70 years ago I would agree with you, but now we have a handful of individuals who are the economy with wealth that's rivaling nations. Something has gone awry.

	▲	solidsnack9000 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		What does that have to with assigning liability to managers as proposed? It seems like the handful of people you're talking about are totally different people.

▲

Ajedi32 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, there are some people who thrive on risk and will do things like jump off a mountain in a wing suit just for the thrill of it. That doesn't mean making that sort of personal recklessness legally mandatory for employment is a good idea.

This sort of personal liability OP is proposing would just ensure the security industry is dominated by highly compensated compulsive gamblers because nobody else is insane enough to take the risk. It's an absolutely ridiculous idea.