On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Warrigal wrote: > On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: >>>> Amend Rule 2228 by removing the second paragraph. >>> >>> Restricted ownership of Rests. >> >> This points to another issue; this makes partnerships into shells who >> can commit crimes etc without living up to the "devolve responsibility" >> clause in any meaningful way. Although I suppose if you want to devalue >> your property by burdening it with rests, that's a tradeoff, though >> perhaps too powerful an option. > > Surely they could still get rests and be exiled just like a first-class > person.
The whole reason we made Rests transfer to first-class members of partnerships was so that we could make first-class members take responsibility for their partnerships' actions. This was a deliberate repair to a broken equity system, and you're suggesting we break it again. -Goethe
