5 ms·

Group punishment for the actions of a few? Pretty indefensible. If you think it is defensible perhaps you could explain why it's just that an assembly line wor

by rbobby 10y ago

Group punishment for the actions of a few? Pretty indefensible. If you think it is defensible perhaps you could explain why it's just that an assembly line worker should lose his livelihood because a few folks implemented this scheme? The worker had no actual or theoretical knowledge of the "crime". Further, the worker had no way of even spotting that a "crime" was taking place. Group punishment just adds victims.

SwellJoe 10y ago
Companies die every day; almost never because of criminal behavior on the part of the company. People lose their jobs over it. Why not defend those companies from failing? Would you suggest that Enron should have continued to exist because employees losing their jobs is a bad thing? Do you think we, as a society, would be better or worse off if bad companies, like Enron (and Volkswagen), are allowed to continue to exist? There is a certain necessary destruction in the free market. There's all sorts of things that the market corrects for (by killing off weak companies); why shouldn't society also impose some corrections based on some basic ethical factors? Further, society does impose corrections on small companies; if my small company killed 59 people by hiding facts about my products, I'd pretty much certainly go to jail (as it should be). It is only very large corporations, and their executives, that are effectively immune to these kinds of corrections; even this, heralded as a huge penalty, is unlikely to impede VW significantly going forward. What's so bad about opening up a place in the market for new auto makers, who don't cheat the system for profit? We are talking about criminal activity here over a period of years, not mere "irregularities".
- philippnagel 10y ago
  You speak of "free market" but next you would like to "impose some corrections"? Doesn't sound like free market at all. How about you stop buying VW cars if you disagree with what the company did (let the market do its work)?
  - SwellJoe 10y ago
    Perhaps re-read my comment. I was not advocating a "free market" solution to this particular problem, I was pointing out that were this a market failure instead of an ethical failure, no one would be arguing VW needs to continue to exist because "jobs". We do not have a perfectly "free market" (and that's OK), though markets are nice things, and in some cases I am in agreement with wanting more free markets. But, do you sincerely believe the right answer to a company killing people is a boycott?
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    A market must have regulation. Including against fraud. "Free Market" isn't some majickal get out of jail free card you can play.
dredmorbius 10y ago
Long standard enforcement mechanism, legal or natural. It gives one hell of an incentive not to stand by while shit goes down. Though whistleblower protections would be quite helpful as well. Not punishing the behavior penalizes honest competitors and defrauded customers and vendors / suppliers.

by rbobby 10y ago

SwellJoe 10y ago

Companies die every day; almost never because of criminal behavior on the part of the company. People lose their jobs over it. Why not defend those companies from failing? Would you suggest that Enron should have continued to exist because employees losing their jobs is a bad thing? Do you think we, as a society, would be better or worse off if bad companies, like Enron (and Volkswagen), are allowed to continue to exist? There is a certain necessary destruction in the free market. There's all sorts of things that the market corrects for (by killing off weak companies); why shouldn't society also impose some corrections based on some basic ethical factors? Further, society does impose corrections on small companies; if my small company killed 59 people by hiding facts about my products, I'd pretty much certainly go to jail (as it should be). It is only very large corporations, and their executives, that are effectively immune to these kinds of corrections; even this, heralded as a huge penalty, is unlikely to impede VW significantly going forward. What's so bad about opening up a place in the market for new auto makers, who don't cheat the system for profit? We are talking about criminal activity here over a period of years, not mere "irregularities".

philippnagel 10y ago
You speak of "free market" but next you would like to "impose some corrections"? Doesn't sound like free market at all. How about you stop buying VW cars if you disagree with what the company did (let the market do its work)?
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  Perhaps re-read my comment. I was not advocating a "free market" solution to this particular problem, I was pointing out that were this a market failure instead of an ethical failure, no one would be arguing VW needs to continue to exist because "jobs". We do not have a perfectly "free market" (and that's OK), though markets are nice things, and in some cases I am in agreement with wanting more free markets. But, do you sincerely believe the right answer to a company killing people is a boycott?
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  A market must have regulation. Including against fraud. "Free Market" isn't some majickal get out of jail free card you can play.

dredmorbius 10y ago

Long standard enforcement mechanism, legal or natural. It gives one hell of an incentive not to stand by while shit goes down. Though whistleblower protections would be quite helpful as well. Not punishing the behavior penalizes honest competitors and defrauded customers and vendors / suppliers.