3 ms·

A super interesting question. If a company attempts to abolish environmental restrictions, in order to, say, get to sell food with carcinogenic substances, and

A super interesting question. If a company attempts to abolish environmental restrictions, in order to, say, get to sell food with carcinogenic substances, and in that way make more money — then one viewpoint can be, that the company attempts to make money by killing people. I.e. attempted murder. Therefore the executives and people at the company, responsible for lobbying / bribing politicians, in order to remove all environmental restrictions so that the company can sell poisonous food — they should go to prison. Right now I think that's what I wish would happen. Tax evasion (= money "only"), though, is very different from removing environmental restrictions (= killing people).

smokeyj 10y ago
So lobbying is the equivalent of murder.. but the party accepting the bribe.. that was entrusted to protect you from murderers.. should not go to prison? Frankly, in this picture you've painted, I'm not sure what the point of this bribe accepting party is. This is like having a body guard that might shoot you if there's a higher bidder. The whole point of the body guard is to protect you from killers, but now he's shopping around for contracts on your head. It's almost like the State having a monopoly on violence is paradoxical to it's alleged end goal.
- HappyDreamer 10y ago
  Should [a lawmaker accepting a bribe / lobbying-money to remove restrictions meant to prevent people from dying] go to prison? In some cases, yes I would probably want that to happen. Imagine a company and a few lawmakers that via bribes/lobbying remove regulations around asbestos (which is very carcinogenic) and start building houses with asbestos (because asbestos is inexpensive). Now people are going to die in cancer, almost for sure. The company and lawmakers are, in my opinion, killing people to make money. So, they should go to prison. So I think I want laws that prevent companies _and_ politicians/lawmakers from suggesting-to-remove and removing important environmental restrictions meant to save people's lives. Perhaps it sounds weird with laws about what regulations/laws might be canceled. Some kind of "meta laws". One way to think about it, could be a defense-in-depth. Now it gets even harder for some evil company, to make money by destroying the environment & hurting people. I'm not sure all this would work out well in practice though.
  - smokeyj 10y ago
    You're describing a bodyguard that might kill you if there's a higher bidder. And your solution is to give the bodyguard more power. Dude. I just want you to consider that your relationship with said bodyguard is abusive and preventing you from thinking straight. And said bodyguard will never care about you more than the money his higher up friends will provide. I know this bodyguard told you a lot of lies, about always being there for you. About protecting and serving. Sorry dude, it's lip service. The bodyguard works for the highest bidder and the highest bidder isn't you or me. The solution?? Higher a real god damn bodyguard! One with a collateralized contract and reliable arbitrator of your mutual choosing. Turns out social contracts aren't worth the imaginary paper they're written on.
ptaipale 10y ago
Everything is carcinogenic, or poisonous - it's always only a matter of dose. Defining lobbying as murder in such a broad category as this is silly.
- HappyDreamer 10y ago
  Actually there is a misunderstanding. I didn't write about everything — I had in mind carcinogenic stuff, dangerous enough to make people sick and kill some (in a large population). So when you write "such a broad category" and you have in mind literally everything — then that's not what I meant.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Yes, but your definition for "carcinogenic stuff" most likely would be interpreted by activists to include e.g. glyphosate - which is now classified as "category 2A possibly causes cancer" and is getting a lot of attention. In reality, category 2A also includes manufacture of art glassware, hairdressers, and shift work, and the more dangerous category 1 includes e.g. beer. Still you can bet the activists would use our murder charge approach to attack glyphosate manufacturers, not beer manufacturers.
    - HappyDreamer 10y ago
      Interesting, didn't know beer is carcinogenic. Googled about that — apparently, although alcohol it's carcinogenic, drinking a little bit, reduces the risk for cancer (and heart attacks). Actually personally I didn't have in mind the possibly causes cancer category. I had in mind more obviously dangerous things like asbestos, and something that was in heavy use in Europe like 30? 50? years ago but then got forbidden because it resulted in severe birth defects. [Edit: I think it's called Thalidomide, was sold as a drug named Contergan] Some activists do "attack" beer manufacturers :-) (I found out when googling for "beer carcinogens"). And this particular beer manufacturer did apparently listen to what people said, and removed some carcinogenic caramel coloring from a beer. http://organics.org/8-beers-that-you-should-stop-drinking-immediately/ http://organics.org/8-beers-that-you-should-stop-drinking-im...

smokeyj 10y ago

So lobbying is the equivalent of murder.. but the party accepting the bribe.. that was entrusted to protect you from murderers.. should not go to prison? Frankly, in this picture you've painted, I'm not sure what the point of this bribe accepting party is. This is like having a body guard that might shoot you if there's a higher bidder. The whole point of the body guard is to protect you from killers, but now he's shopping around for contracts on your head. It's almost like the State having a monopoly on violence is paradoxical to it's alleged end goal.

HappyDreamer 10y ago
Should [a lawmaker accepting a bribe / lobbying-money to remove restrictions meant to prevent people from dying] go to prison? In some cases, yes I would probably want that to happen. Imagine a company and a few lawmakers that via bribes/lobbying remove regulations around asbestos (which is very carcinogenic) and start building houses with asbestos (because asbestos is inexpensive). Now people are going to die in cancer, almost for sure. The company and lawmakers are, in my opinion, killing people to make money. So, they should go to prison. So I think I want laws that prevent companies _and_ politicians/lawmakers from suggesting-to-remove and removing important environmental restrictions meant to save people's lives. Perhaps it sounds weird with laws about what regulations/laws might be canceled. Some kind of "meta laws". One way to think about it, could be a defense-in-depth. Now it gets even harder for some evil company, to make money by destroying the environment & hurting people. I'm not sure all this would work out well in practice though.
- smokeyj 10y ago
  You're describing a bodyguard that might kill you if there's a higher bidder. And your solution is to give the bodyguard more power. Dude. I just want you to consider that your relationship with said bodyguard is abusive and preventing you from thinking straight. And said bodyguard will never care about you more than the money his higher up friends will provide. I know this bodyguard told you a lot of lies, about always being there for you. About protecting and serving. Sorry dude, it's lip service. The bodyguard works for the highest bidder and the highest bidder isn't you or me. The solution?? Higher a real god damn bodyguard! One with a collateralized contract and reliable arbitrator of your mutual choosing. Turns out social contracts aren't worth the imaginary paper they're written on.

ptaipale 10y ago

Everything is carcinogenic, or poisonous - it's always only a matter of dose. Defining lobbying as murder in such a broad category as this is silly.

HappyDreamer 10y ago
Actually there is a misunderstanding. I didn't write about everything — I had in mind carcinogenic stuff, dangerous enough to make people sick and kill some (in a large population). So when you write "such a broad category" and you have in mind literally everything — then that's not what I meant.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  Yes, but your definition for "carcinogenic stuff" most likely would be interpreted by activists to include e.g. glyphosate - which is now classified as "category 2A possibly causes cancer" and is getting a lot of attention. In reality, category 2A also includes manufacture of art glassware, hairdressers, and shift work, and the more dangerous category 1 includes e.g. beer. Still you can bet the activists would use our murder charge approach to attack glyphosate manufacturers, not beer manufacturers.
  - HappyDreamer 10y ago
    Interesting, didn't know beer is carcinogenic. Googled about that — apparently, although alcohol it's carcinogenic, drinking a little bit, reduces the risk for cancer (and heart attacks). Actually personally I didn't have in mind the possibly causes cancer category. I had in mind more obviously dangerous things like asbestos, and something that was in heavy use in Europe like 30? 50? years ago but then got forbidden because it resulted in severe birth defects. [Edit: I think it's called Thalidomide, was sold as a drug named Contergan] Some activists do "attack" beer manufacturers :-) (I found out when googling for "beer carcinogens"). And this particular beer manufacturer did apparently listen to what people said, and removed some carcinogenic caramel coloring from a beer. http://organics.org/8-beers-that-you-should-stop-drinking-immediately/ http://organics.org/8-beers-that-you-should-stop-drinking-im...