3 ms·
That's because the antisociality of breaking those laws is less provable than a violation of a materialized enumeration, in this sense: If you steal something f
by dnautics 7y ago
That's because the antisociality of breaking those laws is less provable than a violation of a materialized enumeration, in this sense: If you steal something from a shop, I can point a finger at the shopkeeper and say, yes that person was hurt, and by this much. Then I can point at the thief, and say that person gained, and by this much. If the identities of the victim and perpetrator are nebulous, and the externality is vague, and the laws being broken themselves are inconsistent across jurisdictions and have a history of abuse by those in power, and have in places themselves been a source of questionable action (like racist policy and blatant theft from the poor by municipalities), what you are asking for is far more challenging.
- bradleyjg 7y agoIt’s not more challenging in the sense of we don’t know how to write laws that would work or that those laws would be unconstitutional. Corporations have figured out how to use incentives, winks, and nods to avoid having anyone but the lowest level employees end up with provable beyond a reasonable doubt intent level mens rea. But we have solutions to that in our toolkit. We can define crimes as requiring only negligence or even strict liability crimes. We need only summon the collective will.
- dnautics 7y agoThose laws that you propose will still themselves be used against less powerful companies, even weaponized, by more powerful companies. Or worse, weaponized by politicians.