[thayne]

> Secondly it's not "taking advantage" in a pejorative sense. It doesn't make other people poorer.

Maybe not by itself. But by reducing risk, it also reduces accountability which allows people to take advantage of people in other, often illegal or unlawful ways, without any meaningful consequences when they get caught.

In the OP, the owner of the business has caused multiple deaths through negligence, but at least from the contents of that article there hasn't been any meaningful consequence.

[usefulcat]

> But by reducing risk, it also reduces accountability which allows people to take advantage of people in other, often illegal or unlawful ways, without any meaningful consequences when they get caught.

Is the above also an argument against insurance? If not, why not?

[rblatz]

Insurance companies payout, unlike people with assets structured in a way that protects them. Thus insurance companies are heavily incentivized to reduce the likelihood of having to pay out claims. They are experts at estimating risk and managing risk.

[int_19h]

In some places it is illegal to insure against liabilities stemming from criminal activity, for this exact reason.

[bruce511]

Structures don't make people do illegal things, people do illegal things.

Yes, "hiding your money" might seem like it reduces accountability, but the law has a solution to that (called prison).

Yes, as we all well know the law is imperfect, and administered by imperfect people.

None of this removes the legitimate value people get from using financial tools properly. Just because cars are used as getaway vehicles doesn't mean we should ban cars.

[sanderjd]

This might be a good argument if "this person did something really bad and escaped accountability by shielding their assets" were a crime that results in prison time. But it ain't!