Something much more targeted is appropriate there. Maybe we need a regulatory framework where people own their own data. Make it impractical, expensive and burdensome to hold personal data you don't absolutely need.

That has nothing to do with changing the whole approach to -- really undermining the whole idea of -- corporations. Limited liability is the only way they can work. It's a cornerstone of every developed economy.

▲

wat10000 2 days ago | parent [-]

Corporate officers can already be held individually liable for some things. This would just add another one, it wouldn’t be undermining the whole idea of corporations. If individuals can be held personally liable for their company’s failure to pay payroll taxes and corporations still manage to exist and do business, then I don’t see why this would be so different.

▲

solidsnack9000 2 days ago | parent [-]

What situation do you have in mind when you say "...individuals can be held personally liable for their company’s failure to pay payroll taxes..."?

▲

wat10000 2 days ago | parent [-]

I’m not quite sure how to answer that. The situation I have in mind is the one described in the bit you quoted. A company doesn’t pay legally required payroll taxes, then depending on circumstances, corporate officers may be personally liable for them. See: https://www.irs.gov/irm/part5/irm_05-017-007

	▲	solidsnack9000 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		IRM 5.17.7 (https://www.irs.gov/irm/part5/irm_05-017-007), is about corporate officers who have a duty "...to account for, collect, and pay over..." taxes and failed to perform that duty. I don't think this is at all similar to jsrozner's solution, which is to assign liability to "...every person who has ever worked for IDScan at any level of management...". The IRM is describing officers with culpability as individuals whereas jsrozner is really proposing to do without any individuate consideration of wrongdoing at all.