CEOs exist to execute the decisions of the board. In a capitalist system the decisions can often be boiled down to "siphon surplus value to shareholders instead of letting the people who produce it to retain it."

In a socialist system where the workers have a controlling majority of the board, you still need someone to execute the decisions of the board. Or are you suggesting that a worker owned company doesn't need any top leader beyond the board?

Which would suggest workers owning the means of production is compatible with market capitalism. Just heavily incentive coops and other collective ownership schemes.

and the CEO was hired to do it.

Yes, and the CEO is hired to keep an eye on everything that happens in the company. That's his job. Not the owners at this point. The owner doesn't tell the CEO to employ psychopathic people (unless he does excplicity, ofc). He tells the CEO: "Here's your monthly salary, don't fuck it up" and that's it. Every further responsibility is with the CEO.

Insulating owners from the consequences of their choices

But hiring the wrong people isn't the owners choice. The owner doesn't make any choices anymore, otherwise he would be the CEO and not employ someone to run the business in their stead.

Linited Liability makes it so the CEO of Activision faces no accountability from the government when he caused his employees to kill themselves. Or the CEO of BP suffering consequences after those oil spills. Or the CEOs of for profit private prisons being held responsible for all of the illegal activities done inside the prisons. But they arent. That’s not a libertarian opinion you fucking moron. That’s a fact of life. Get your shit together the next time you comment.

After Deepwater Horizon, BP itself pleaded guilty to 14 criminal counts, including 11 felony manslaughter counts, obstruction of Congress, and environmental offenses, and received $4 billion in criminal fines and penalties. More importantly for the “LLC protects the humans” theory, federal prosecutors also personally charged two BP well-site supervisors with manslaughter and charged a former senior BP executive with obstruction of Congress and false statements.

Get your shit together kiddo use an AI if you want to argue with me.

TLDR big corporation doesnt need you defending it by making up weird corporate law in your head. We used to throw a CEO in jail before they owned the whole government

Okay, well let me help you understand what limited liability limits: Your personal assets. Thats it dude, it means your debtors cant go after your personal house. It doesn't say your company can commit wage theft and no one's legally responsible. I would be selling crack under an LLC to your mother if i could.

The reason why you're confused and why i was attacking you is you vomited up a bunch of words that didnt make sense and it hurt my brain. The point we're all making is wage theft is a crime, not a bad obligation. you're protected from obligations not legal threat lol. You can absolutely be targeted and prosecuted for the company you oversee committing crimes. So what we're all saying is we'd like to see more of that and much harsher penalties, to prevent companies from exploiting power imbalances and stealing large sums of money???