4 ms·

This should not be a surprise to anyone who understands the purpose of the corporation. It is to create a legal entity that shields owners from liability. See

This should not be a surprise to anyone who understands the purpose of the corporation. It is to create a legal entity that shields owners from liability. See _The Corporation_ by Joel Bakan for details. The answer isn't "get mad at the Sacklers", it's change the law.

ves 6y ago
Well, getting mad at the Sacklers may not be productive, but it’s certainly merited.
- golemotron 6y ago
  But inconsequential compared to changing the law.
cainxinth 6y ago
We can do both
- blackflame7000 6y ago
  No we can't because their medication also helped a lot of people in addition to the abusers that make it difficult for everyone else to get treatment.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - tlrobinson 6y ago
    Roughly half a million Americans have died from opioid overdoses since 1998 [1]. I don’t know how many can be directly attributed to OxyContin, but other drugs are pulled from the market over a tiny fraction of that number of deaths or less serious side effects. 1. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/features/prescription-drug-overdose/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/injury/features/prescription-drug-overdo...
    - blackflame7000 6y ago
      Yea that's called Darwinism because they are dumbass drug addicts with no self control. OVERDOSE means you took more than you were supposed to. They all knew what they were doing. Nobody shoved it down their throats. It's only their loved ones who make excuses to try and rationalize it. Stop encouraging that behavior. Encourage personal responsibility.
      - dang 6y ago
        Could you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? We're trying for something different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        blackflame7000 6y ago
        Dang, I know you like to run a tight ship, but being critical is not the same thing as trying to instigate a flamewar. I’m stating harsh realities and we need to be grown-ups and deal with them if we ever want to solve them. You’re clearly a person of enough mental fortitude to moderate subjective material but sometimes I think passionate discussion is necessary. Everyone on this forum is an adult (From an intelligence pov) who should be able to handle critical questions with admittedly poor tone and not become emotionally blinded. See that’s what im trying to do; I’m trying to see if they will fight reason with better reason or subjective emotion. If you limit conversation on the grounds of hurting someones feelings, then you’re stifling the ability to express an idea to people more who might be more receptive.
alextheparrot 6y ago
This monotheistic appeal to the altar of legalism is frightening. Just because my government or even peers have determined that raining down hellfire on villages in the Middle East or has accepted that some of the state's population should be subject to capital punishment does not mean I think it is 'good'. Moreover, I can be angry because I think it is bad. It is not simply irrational either - in my framework of moral logic I see someone doing something 'bad' and naturally react negatively towards that behavior.
- golemotron 6y ago
  It's fine to get angry. Just do something too.
hilbert42 6y ago
'The answer isn't "get mad at the Sacklers", it's change the law.' In fact it's both. It's a shame your internal ethics aren't shouting that fact out loudly to you.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
rstuart4133 6y ago
> This should not be a surprise to anyone who understands the purpose of the corporation. It is to create a legal entity that shields owners from liability. True. But the owners are the shareholders. The bargain is if they limit their involvement to providing capital, their liability is limited to what they provided. But the Slackers didn't limit their involvement to just buying shares, they ran the place. There are not just on the line for criminal activity, the banks could have made them personally responsible for money borrowed, companies made them responsible for NDA's, governments hold them personally responsible for things they sign like tax submissions.

ves 6y ago

Well, getting mad at the Sacklers may not be productive, but it’s certainly merited.

golemotron 6y ago
But inconsequential compared to changing the law.

cainxinth 6y ago

We can do both

blackflame7000 6y ago
No we can't because their medication also helped a lot of people in addition to the abusers that make it difficult for everyone else to get treatment.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tlrobinson 6y ago
  Roughly half a million Americans have died from opioid overdoses since 1998 [1]. I don’t know how many can be directly attributed to OxyContin, but other drugs are pulled from the market over a tiny fraction of that number of deaths or less serious side effects. 1. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/features/prescription-drug-overdose/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/injury/features/prescription-drug-overdo...
  - blackflame7000 6y ago
    Yea that's called Darwinism because they are dumbass drug addicts with no self control. OVERDOSE means you took more than you were supposed to. They all knew what they were doing. Nobody shoved it down their throats. It's only their loved ones who make excuses to try and rationalize it. Stop encouraging that behavior. Encourage personal responsibility.
    - dang 6y ago
      Could you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? We're trying for something different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - blackflame7000 6y ago
        Dang, I know you like to run a tight ship, but being critical is not the same thing as trying to instigate a flamewar. I’m stating harsh realities and we need to be grown-ups and deal with them if we ever want to solve them. You’re clearly a person of enough mental fortitude to moderate subjective material but sometimes I think passionate discussion is necessary. Everyone on this forum is an adult (From an intelligence pov) who should be able to handle critical questions with admittedly poor tone and not become emotionally blinded. See that’s what im trying to do; I’m trying to see if they will fight reason with better reason or subjective emotion. If you limit conversation on the grounds of hurting someones feelings, then you’re stifling the ability to express an idea to people more who might be more receptive.

alextheparrot 6y ago

This monotheistic appeal to the altar of legalism is frightening. Just because my government or even peers have determined that raining down hellfire on villages in the Middle East or has accepted that some of the state's population should be subject to capital punishment does not mean I think it is 'good'. Moreover, I can be angry because I think it is bad. It is not simply irrational either - in my framework of moral logic I see someone doing something 'bad' and naturally react negatively towards that behavior.

golemotron 6y ago
It's fine to get angry. Just do something too.

hilbert42 6y ago

'The answer isn't "get mad at the Sacklers", it's change the law.' In fact it's both. It's a shame your internal ethics aren't shouting that fact out loudly to you.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

rstuart4133 6y ago

> This should not be a surprise to anyone who understands the purpose of the corporation. It is to create a legal entity that shields owners from liability. True. But the owners are the shareholders. The bargain is if they limit their involvement to providing capital, their liability is limited to what they provided. But the Slackers didn't limit their involvement to just buying shares, they ran the place. There are not just on the line for criminal activity, the banks could have made them personally responsible for money borrowed, companies made them responsible for NDA's, governments hold them personally responsible for things they sign like tax submissions.