[kelnos]

I do love it. Companies don't exist solely to enrich their founders, they exist to provide a benefit to society. There needs to be a balance, of course, but if allowing a sale does not benefit society, then we should not allow it.

> your startup

You're under the misconception that companies "belong" to individuals. Companies are legal frameworks that society has decided upon. We could legally decide that M&A just isn't allowed, ever, if we wanted to. (I don't think that would be a good idea, but I hope you see my point.)

[bagacrap]

It's also not "your" startup once there are shareholders, including employees.

If it's a one person shop, then sure it's "yours", and the FTC can't block you from being hired (that I'm aware).

[DenverR]

Congratulations you’ve just described central planning.

So “society” should be able to veto a sale, but when payroll is due the owners are on the hook?

[samrus]

Reductionist. Your phrasing it like the onky options are full central planning and libertarianism. Theyre both wrong. You need the free market to do what it is capable of, and regulate it when its isnt. The free market was going to let monopolies form. We have all already agreed thats bad. Khan's policies just updated that to the tech sphere

[mistercheph]

Actually, the owners not being on the hook when payroll comes due and the business is out of cash is exactly the protection that society has extended to incorporated businesses. But I'd be happy to horse trade unregulated m&a activity for owners, boardmembers and executives having full liability exposure, financial and criminal.