Reductionism can be useful for argument but can also go too far and lose the point.
Wrongness (subjectively, at least; let's avoid the question of objective morality) exists independent of government, and independent of liability.
But liability is a creation of government through law, just as much as limitations on liability are. Which is why government has the power to limit liability; if liability was independent of government, government would also not be able to limit it.
Why would government create something then proceed to limit the very thing they created, that make no sense
It is limited liability because liability existed before the government, then the government came in to limit it
No,the premise is wrong. Government existed, and created liability, before government also created liability, so when government created limited liability, liability did exist to limit, even though that existence was not independent of government.
> It is limited liability because liability existed before the government
No, it 's called limited liability because liability existed before the limitation, not because liability existed before government.
Just like the FISA limits on government surveillance are called limits on government surveillance because government surveillance existed before FISA, but not because government surveillance existed before government.
Except, liability implements that innate sense of "wrongness" you and the other poster referred to, while limits on liability violate it. So in that sense one is justice (however flawed or approximate it may be in implementation) and one is injustice.
But my statement was even simpler than that. The limitation of that liability transfers it to an abstract construction (called a corporation) we just invented. Let's call it a "person" for dramatic effect(after all SCOTUS did). You can either hold a real physical person liable for an injustice they committed, or you can hold an imaginary person liable. There's a difference.
This is often the diverging point between a libertarian outlook on the world, and an authoritarian one.
To the Authoritarian all laws are just social constructs created by governments, thus it is all subjective and there is no objective truth or unethical laws
To libertarians like myself we believe in the Lockean concept of natural rights, where by laws and governments are erected by man to protect those natural rights and any government that goes beyond that goal is Authoritarian and unethical.
To summarize Frédéric Bastiat "The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties;"
Ethical Governments are formed to enforce this law, these natural rights, to provide a common defense force of a persons natural rights.
Ethical Governments are not formed to control and regulate all aspects of society at all levels and on all subjects
If you believe that there is some sort of natural rights that laws should reflect, than you believe that you can have good laws and bad laws. This implies laws are social constructs (that attempt to model some sort of semi-objective moral truth). If laws were not a social construct but objective rules, it would follow that there is no such thing as a bad law as they are the ground moral truth by basically fiat (which i would call the authortarian view)
I have no idea how you get from me expressing support for the basic idea of natural human rights to "there is no such thing as a bad law".
Of course there still could be bad law and object moral truth. Those laws would be immoral and we have all kinds of unethical and immoral laws today on the books. Many protests and riots have been done recently due to many of these immoral laws
I have no idea how you got from A to B in your comment
You claimed "To the Authoritarian all laws are just social constructs created by governments, thus it is all subjective" with the implication that libertarians (which you are arguing for) believe the opposite.
Thus you are claiming: "laws are not subjective"
By which i took to mean (this might have been a slight leap on my part now that i look at it again): laws are not simply someone's decree, and falliable like all human creations, but instead they have some deep truth or objective reality to them.
I concluded from this: laws cannot be bad, because that contradicts the idea that they have "truth" and are objective.
I don't believe you can judge something objective good or bad. Objective things just "are" they are neither good nor bad. Good and bad are the realm of the subjective.
Good, Ethical and Moral law is then derived from this objective principle
unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. The law has been used to destroy its own objective. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense. [2]
All legal concepts are government created fictions. That includes everything from corporations to parking tickets. Why do you think corporations are government created concept but liability isnt?