2 ms·

> The idea that unlimited liability somehow creates accountability is absurd Of course, and I dont agree with your intepretation that the courts can nullify re

> The idea that unlimited liability somehow creates accountability is absurd Of course, and I dont agree with your intepretation that the courts can nullify requests on the state: the state often pays a lot of damages and compensations, it just does it by taxing third parties. It's an important detail: if if PGE threatens bankrupcy and for example, endangers payouts to small counties and individuals that lost their homes, you could think that the state should bail out PG&E to help those people. After-all the bailout is free. Or you should think that the state invents a program to raise taxes to alleviate the condition of the victims, and PG&E is not even mentioned.

notacoward 8y ago
> the state often pays a lot of damages and compensations Even more often it denies suit. It's called sovereign immunity, and at the US federal level it must be explicitly waived before a suit can even start. There are many other ways that governments at all levels protect themselves from the liability a private party would have for doing the same things. An occasional exception doesn't change the fact that they have and use the ability. > you could think that the state should bail out PG&E Not "should" so much as "will". I know it's not free, but it's going to happen anyway in the case of essential services. That's the real point. You can't sue PG&E into oblivion. You can just back-door nationalize it via lawsuits. Is that what you think should happen? I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at here, other than repeating a "gubmint is evil" trope that has no bearing on the situation at hand.