>You're talking past the OP commenter.

No I'm not. The OP clearly doesn't understand the basic concepts. "Because companies going bankrupt have no liability for debts" is misunderstanding what "limited liability" means.

>Which is precisely why the OP commenter framed their argument in terms of the general concept of limited liability.

That's not the general concept of limited liability. They are simply mistaken. They just parroted Reddit and BlueSky takes.