We can probably both agree it's difficult or impossible to construct an ethical basis for the unilateral preference of the group over the individual, an easy counterexample is queer rights. So we can't just make whatever rules we think best benefit society: there are ethical limits, and many demographics in the world who still seek liberation from State oppression.
Therefore, any encroachment on the rights of the individual over the rights of the group must be justified. A monopoly on violence is not justification. I am not saying your suggestion is flat-out unethical. But I seek to understand the basis on which you're claiming we as a community have the right to prevent someone from retaining control of their company. I could see one trying to make the case that if the owner commits a serious and relevant crime it might be best to prevent him from doing further harm, but you seem to be suggesting some arbitrary threshold after which a person is not allowed to retain control of their company.
On the basis that public corporations are exclusively a legal construct which can, and indeed already do, have arbitrary rules. Should the individual wish to maintain control over their company they can simply keep it private indefinitely.
And, we have granted them limited liability. Not something anyone, or any group is entitled to. It’s appropriate to condition that special treatment towards our goals.
"Because we can make arbitrary rules" is not a justification or basis. Again, I am not saying it cannot or should not be done; I am asking for the justification.
"Because I can" sounds like what my grandfather used to say while beating the shit out of me for questioning his cult-derived arbitrary doctrine. We can do better than that.
I am going to ask a third time, on what basis? "Because" is not a justification and you're going to have to do better than that. If you cannot provide a justification then you cannot even begin to establish that it is in the public's best interest.
You said "because we give them limited liability". I know you are capable of understanding why that isn't a reason. It does not even reference the proposition in question. I guess you are not interested in actually defending this proposition, and that is fine. I'm going to turn my attention away from your pointless interjection now and just talk to OP, who actually took the time to engage.
