4 ms·

They clearly don't, and obviously don't understand why it exists. Nothing interesting would be possible without it. Nobody on Earth would be a C-level executive

They clearly don't, and obviously don't understand why it exists. Nothing interesting would be possible without it. Nobody on Earth would be a C-level executive if they had criminal liability for all their employees. I sometimes think that people that want to end it have never been in charge of anything nontrivial and have no idea how terrible the consequences of ending it would be.

perfmode 8y ago
How do you propose we address the problems we face?
- throwaway5752 8y ago
  Per my earlier comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18657024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18657024) regulating and enforcing regulations. This already exists, and when not deregulated or captured, works well. There is no magic system that removes the human element to this, and the cost here is a vigilant population that holds elected officials responsible and doesn't allow deregulation or regulatory capture. There is no possible solution to this that works absent a population that doesn't consider it important. This is exemplified in jurisdictions where police turn a blind eye because so-and-so is the son of so-and-so and it's tolerated. Criminal liability (vs limited liability and corporate regulation) for executives is just as weak and has large unintended consequences.
aphextron 8y ago
>They clearly don't, and obviously don't understand why it exists. Nothing interesting would be possible without it. Nobody on Earth would be a C-level executive if they had criminal liability for all their employees. I sometimes think that people that want to end it have never been in charge of anything nontrivial and have no idea how terrible the consequences of ending it would be. Well perhaps those things should be illegal or made untenable. If you are publicizing risks in such a way that you are privately profiting from the public endangerment, you really don't have any moral or legal right to that money. Yet here we are again in a situation where people are killed, an executive says "we're sorry", and they continue pocketing the money.

perfmode 8y ago

How do you propose we address the problems we face?

throwaway5752 8y ago
Per my earlier comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18657024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18657024) regulating and enforcing regulations. This already exists, and when not deregulated or captured, works well. There is no magic system that removes the human element to this, and the cost here is a vigilant population that holds elected officials responsible and doesn't allow deregulation or regulatory capture. There is no possible solution to this that works absent a population that doesn't consider it important. This is exemplified in jurisdictions where police turn a blind eye because so-and-so is the son of so-and-so and it's tolerated. Criminal liability (vs limited liability and corporate regulation) for executives is just as weak and has large unintended consequences.

aphextron 8y ago

>They clearly don't, and obviously don't understand why it exists. Nothing interesting would be possible without it. Nobody on Earth would be a C-level executive if they had criminal liability for all their employees. I sometimes think that people that want to end it have never been in charge of anything nontrivial and have no idea how terrible the consequences of ending it would be. Well perhaps those things should be illegal or made untenable. If you are publicizing risks in such a way that you are privately profiting from the public endangerment, you really don't have any moral or legal right to that money. Yet here we are again in a situation where people are killed, an executive says "we're sorry", and they continue pocketing the money.