At some point you have to recognize the individual is at fault
Sure, and you catch them on something else, like fraud. But if it’s purely a financial failure, you bankrupt the corp and move on, because that’s how the law is structured.
If we want different results, we need different legal structures. In this case, we shouldn’t be granting liability protections in the first place if the person opening it has a history of bankruptcies or whatever. But once the liability protections are granted, they must be upheld or revoked, and if revoked, all prior actions should still be covered.
That’s how the law should work, and we can’t just waive away legal contracts because they’re inconvenient, because that violates the rule of law.
Sure, and you catch them on something else, like fraud. But if it’s purely a financial failure, you bankrupt the corp and move on, because that’s how the law is structured.
If we want different results, we need different legal structures. In this case, we shouldn’t be granting liability protections in the first place if the person opening it has a history of bankruptcies or whatever. But once the liability protections are granted, they must be upheld or revoked, and if revoked, all prior actions should still be covered.
That’s how the law should work, and we can’t just waive away legal contracts because they’re inconvenient, because that violates the rule of law.
Assuming I accept your premise, the premise of the article is that the actions are not being done by the company.
The key point is that Musk is at fault, not his company.
You can’t just hide behind “the company” and do whatever you want.
At some point, as the EU is discussing, the individual is at fault.