How Do You Convince Americans To Accept LESS From the Govt.?

That's no answer at all for who is ultimately responsible for the companies debts, given that those can exceed the liquid value of the company. Talking about debts that can be covered by assets and investments is a red herring.

And voluntarily is not how it is done at present. You can't have it both ways.
Of course, even in your fantasy land, I put it to you that creditors would be incredibly hesistant to voluntarily agree to limited liability, and that at the very least it would alter the balance of power in any dealings quite substantially.

Not a necessary element of the concept. If you must "reform" something, attack that aspect without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Because it never happens that way? Take it up with the lender.

As well they should be.

Explain.

You seem unwilling or unable to grasp the fact that just because not every corporation ends up owing more than it can pay that it nevertheless remains a risk for all of them. Someone must under all cases be responsible for that risk.

If limited liability doesn't exist by virtue of state interference and needs to be agreed as part of every business transaction, creditors will extract a better deal for themselves as a condition of accepting it.

I grasp it. It's just not my concern unless I'm involved. Nor is it yours. You're warping "responsibility" to mean "I will go after anyone and everyone with even a tenuous connection to this corporation until I have recovered a sufficient dollar amount." "Responsibility" in this context only means what the parties involved agree that it means.

I should hope so, but enforcing voluntary contracts is not "state interference."

No, you don't grasp it. I've referred again and again to a liability to a third party who did not agree to anything. And you keep referring to voluntary agreements involving liabilities which can be covered.

And given the shifting balance of power that this would bring, it's not at all clear that such a system would result in a stable or successful economy.

You're going to have to make up your mind as to whether you're defending the status quo or some reformed alternative. Because such voluntary agreements are not what happens presently.

Even if they can't be covered, if it was a voluntary agreement between private parties they can sort it out by the terms of their contract. I don't believe I've ever supported this "involuntary third party" angle.

Irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not interested in engineering a stable economy if it involves restricting my ability to engage in private contracts with other willing parties.

Without taking much of an interest in corporate law ( ), I doubt I need to convince anyone that I as a rule do not defend the status quo. But I'm not accepting the implied coercion at face value here, because your definitions are likely to be a bit broader than someone putting a gun to another person's head.

It isn't for you to "support" or not. It is an unavoidable risk and you need to account for who you think should be responsible for it. Your continued refusal to do so is highly suspect and would imply support for the status quo where these creditors, by your own definitions, are coerced into accepting liability because you don't want that to lie with the shareholders.

That sounds a lot like sitting on the fence and not adopting a position at all.
How is it not coersion if the state enforces limited liability upon creditors rather than that being voluntarily agreed to?