Limited liability is not a right but a privilege carrying responsibilities

Posted on

This comment was in the FT from in-house journalist Dan McCrum a couple of days ago:

Perhaps it is time to consider more radical action, a fundamental change to the rules under which businesses operate, to shape the use of all that official support.

The point to realise is that business operates with responsibilities and privileges set by society and governed by clear rules. For instance, the limited liability structure means someone can start, own and run a company without risk of personal bankruptcy. That benefit comes with obligations in many jurisdictions to be transparent about the people involved and the finances of the group.

Quite so.

Good to have such things noted in the FT, and it to be recorded there that limited liability is not a right but a privilege carrying responsibilities, as I have long argued.

The problem is threefold. The first is that this has to be said. It is is not a recognised truth.

The second is that the government clearly fails to enforce those responsibilities by its reckless management of Companies House that, in particular, fails to enforce the filing of accounts far too often.

And third, the costs that this failure imposes on society is tolerated as a result, which is absurd.

This is the time to enforce as well as change the rules in that case.