4 ms·
Yes, but you cannot simply compare the results of industrial activity with the results of breaking rules governing industrial activity. The rules were the trade
by edejong 11y ago
Yes, but you cannot simply compare the results of industrial activity with the results of breaking rules governing industrial activity. The rules were the trade-off and breaking them breaks the trade-off.
- kashkhan 11y agoThe rules have always been for the benefit of industry, not to save lives. The government explicitly shields corporations from liability.
- edejong 11y agoSuch a defeatist approach, but I won't argue whose benefit these rules are. Fact is that they are put in place and they help to prevent disease and death. So, now to liability: [1]: "If a corporate officer "authorizes, directs or in some meaningful sense actively participates in the wrongful conduct," personal liability will attach even though the actions were taken by the corporation. " [1] http://www.greenbergglusker.com/news/articles/When-Corporate-Officers-Are-Personally-Liable- http://www.greenbergglusker.com/news/articles/When-Corporate...
- kashkhan 11y agoIdentifying the problem is not defeatist. The concentration of power in government makes it attractive to abuse by the powerful and the rich. It is not against the law to pollute the environment, and reduce its future habitability. Companies are not charged for adding CO2 or NOX to the environment. That may change n the future, but right now they do not have to pay the people they harm.
- btian 11y agoThen why is VW in hot water? They should just claim that rules always benefited industry and should always benefit industry ad infinitum right?
- kashkhan 11y agobecause their competitors stand to benefit. The governments will get the fines and the dead people will get nothing.