4 ms·
Regardless. If he is not capable of guaranteeing this, then clearly Amazon is too big and complex to follow the law. If a person is incapable of following the l
by cryptica 6y ago
Regardless. If he is not capable of guaranteeing this, then clearly Amazon is too big and complex to follow the law.
If a person is incapable of following the law by controlling their own actions, we put them in a psychiatric asylum.
If a corporation is incapable of following the law by controlling their own actions, what should be done with them?
Clearly it would be unjust to let them continue. It's already bad enough that corporations have the same rights as people, they shouldn't be exempt from having to face the consequences of their transgressions because that would put their rights above people.
There are very strong ethical and economic grounds for breaking up these corporations.
It merely comes down to the law. It really doesn't make sense that corporations are allowed to keep breaking the law and only get fined whereas if people keep breaking the law, they go to jail.
If people were treated the same as corporations and we abolished prisons, people would form mafias and go on rampages, hunt down billionaires, seize all their assets, then use the assets that they stole to pay the fines... Clearly that doesn't make any sense, it would be total anarchy; and yet this is exactly what we allow corporations to do.
- Nasrudith 6y agoUnder that definition the US is an open air insane aslyum because nobody knows all of the vast body of laws they are incapable of following them. Meanwhile abolishing all laws would make Hinkley perfectly sane. To be perfectly frank using laws as a basis for sanity isn't a sane concept in the first place. Besides while they are pissy about accessing the data it isn't /against the law/ per se. A mom and pop scale website doing the same thing wouldn't even be cared about as anti-competive. It isn't like price fixing where it is a crime in itself.