(Incorporation of the Risk)
Limiting the liability is a function of incorporating the risk.
Structural identity can be easily argued as a systemic ontology. This is the argument made by TBTF corporates to legitimize consolidation of the risk.
The object is to control for systemic risk. Specifically, it knowingly and willingly defeats free-market mechanics. At the same time, the corporate body argues that the organized technology of being TBTF derives from (is THE naturally emergent property of) free-market economics. (Being TBTF is THE genuine article–the real property, the actualized presence, of free-market mechanics.)
(Yes, it is a derivative value. TBTF is, however, an in-tendency, which is the antithesis of an ontological de-termination. Other articles on in-tendency and de-termination of the risk by griffithlighton can be found on the World Wide Web.)
The system capitalism has developed to control for “the risk” (and its philosophy of the risk, which is essentially its “Objectivist” identity) intends to imply that consolidation is the natural evolution of its deconsolidated form (the free market). Just like in nature, capitalists argue, free-market mechanics has evolved over time to yield the product of improved efficiency. This is called “efficient-markets theory.”
According to the efficiency of markets, “natural monopolies” emerge to maximize benefits and minimize costs. In the macro dimension, reducing the cost-to-benefit ratio is a public good (it has natural, rational utility, and thus the liability is naturally limited). Penalizing the production of the public good is irrational (“delusional”) and so it is necessary (an obligation) to resist the authority to regulate the means of its production.
Both Republicans and Democrats advance the utility of natural monopolies. Currently, there are seven bills in the House (controlled by an avowed Objectivist, Paul Ryan) intending to deregulate the financial means of production.
Having the secret knowledge of the way things really work, and thus being obliged to it, Republicans and corporate Democrats are renegotiating the terms of a law that is so HUGE and complex it is impossible to implement, much less evaluate its effectiveness without a huge amount of attribution error. The solution: make administration of the law even more complex so that evaluation of the real costs and benefits requires the special (secret) knowledge of corporate insiders (elite recruits) who are obligated to whom, exactly?
Notice the deliberate incorporation of the risk and the fully assumed liability naturally obligated to its moral equivalence (its imperative value), assumed to be arbitrary (negotiable) if not non-existent.
Is the imperative value really negotiable in the aggregate (gamma-risk) dimension?
As a practical matter, adjusting for income, Senator Sanders doesn’t think so and advocates for deconsolidation of the risk in priority. (I have to agree with that!)