6 ms·

"I don't think it's even relevant that it was not legal at the time". Imagine setting the precedent that the government can unilaterally decide to steal your p

by tsdlts 6y ago

"I don't think it's even relevant that it was not legal at the time". Imagine setting the precedent that the government can unilaterally decide to steal your property based on something your great grandfather did which wasn't even a crime. Do you not see how such a power might be abused in future when you can retroactively punish people for laws where the ink has yet to dry and that they never even committed?

phkahler 6y ago
Ex post facto laws are forbidden by the US constitution.
- btilly 6y ago
  Only for criminal laws. Ex post facto laws allowing civil suits to be brought would be a different matter.
Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
That's a good point. Where's the line between knowingingly circumventing the spirit of the law by following the letter. For example Teflon has been replaced with chemically similar compounds that just aren't Teflon. It'll take decades for the studies to come in, in the mean time every human is being exposed to these chemicals in significant amounts. Then we have bpa, Neonicotinoids and other pesticides. We have cases where companies knowingly sell talc contaminated with asbestos for decades. We know these products kill people, we now the companies that make thenknow they are killing people and yet we can't claw back decades of fraudulently acquired profits and revenues? Imo, we should treat these behaviors like Nazis where everything they touched gets seized, even decades later. If that ruins some lives, well, whose worse off? The injured class or the child who inherited blood money?
- tsdlts 6y ago
  Isn't this a regulation failure though? The fact that these chemicals who we don't know the full effects of are let to market is the problem. Preventative measures make more sense than criminalizing things only when we find out there's a problem. Also, what if the company has been acquired since then, is it still on the hook? What if they've since switched markets entirely? What if the company disbanded and the founders created a new company in the same market? There's no clean way to deal out punishment in a legally unambiguous or overreaching way.
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
    It is 100% a regulation failure. The longer that companies are allowed to pervert government for private gain the louder and more extreme the demands from the disaffected will become.
  - wnoise 6y ago
    > Isn't this a regulation failure though? Both/And. It's a regulation failure, and the unscrupulous take advantage it.
  - arrosenberg 6y ago
    It's a failure by regulators, but when you lobby for the lax regulations, you don't get to also stick them with the blame. > Also, what if the company has been acquired since then, is it still on the hook? It might not be clean, but I do believe it is unambiguous. Yes, the purchaser is still on the hook, and they should check their purchase agreement for the company to see if they can seek restitution from the original owners (assuming the risk of future litigation wasn't disclosed or waived). In this case the company knew they were externalizing a toxic chemical and did it anyways, thus they are liable to the extent the law allows. The original owner is potentially liable for breach of the purchase agreement if that risk wasn't disclosed to the new owner.
acdha 6y ago
There’s a difference between going after people versus continued businesses, and also randomly criminalizing something versus saying that you had plenty of your own lab data showing that it wasn’t good. They knew this stuff was toxic - that’s why they had to secretly dispose of it at sea rather than just the city dump - so it’s pretty different than, say, suing you because your great-grandfather failed to setup an effective anti-cholera regimen.
MrFantastic 6y ago
Corporations live forever. They should have an unlimited Statue of Limitations as well.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  That will never stand up in court.
  - Supermancho 6y ago
    The OP implied that such a law doesn't exist, but there's nothing inherently unconstitutional about a new legislative act to enforce the concept. > That will never stand up in court. What's your point or objection to a hypothetical future?
    - dahfizz 6y ago
      > What's your point or objection to a hypothetical future? "Equality under the law" is a pretty strong argument. Corporations are legal people, and the law treats all people the same. Setting up classes of people with different laws that apply differently is absolutely not something that would fly.
      - tomjakubowski 6y ago
        What do you mean? Even within the category of corporate "people", different types of corporations are regulated differently by the law.
      - Supermancho 6y ago
        > Corporations are legal people That is incorrect. Under some contexts and situations, they are treated and considered the same as people. This is not the same thing. IBM isn't sent a ballot to vote, it is not a "legal person".
      - triceratops 6y ago
        > Corporations are legal people, and the law treats all people the same. I've never heard of a corporation going to jail or being given the chair.
formerly_proven 6y ago
Does ex post facto even apply to fining business? Doubtful. It doesn't even apply in civil matters against people.
cma 6y ago
Liability for damages that you directly benefited from within one or two generations. That it wasn't illegal doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't a tort your estate was liable for, even if harm was only understood later.
headmelted 6y ago
All the more disincentive to carry out such evil and heinous acts in the first place. I'm sure the people of Libby, Montana would have an interesting take on this.
birdyrooster 6y ago
Nope, and based on your explanation feel more comfortable moving forward with laws like this.
majormajor 6y ago
Lots of people here so worried about hypothetical future wrongs that they will shrug away existing past wrongs. We've gotten way too fixated on the theoretical worst case to realize that we're already living in a pretty bad story. Let's deal with future harms when they happen, but let's deal with existing ones now.
- tsdlts 6y ago
  You don't offer any solution, other than "something should be done." Who delivers the punishment for crimes rendered? The government does. By what authority does this government have to execute punishments outside of the law? If the government has authority to execute punishment outside of the law then it becomes judge, jury and executioner. That's not a hypothetical, when there is power, those who wield that power will use it. Is there really any doubt that this would extend beyond just chemical dumping to other things? To me there isn't.
mullen 6y ago
It's Environmental Blood money. Imagine if your grandfather or great grandfather killed people in the Concentration camps and then harvested all the gold and silver from their victims and then left that money to you? You live in wealth from others destroyed lives. This is a same thing but with the ramifications relieved later. People who knowingly dumped toxic sludge into the environment, cashed in a portion of my life so they and their children and grandchildren could live wealthy lives. And yes, it was all legal in both cases too.
- silexia 6y ago
  I think your argument makes sense. It's a version of the stolen property laws... Even if you didn't know it was stolen, you have no right to keep it.
chowned 6y ago
Imagine being able to destroy the environment with impunity. You get rich, and everyone else is forced to live (or die) with the consequences. Well, you don't have to imagine it, because that's reality.
merpnderp 6y ago
The US Constitution explicitly prohibits ex post facto laws (laws after the fact). It isn't even an amendment, but so important the original document prohibited congress from criminalizing past legal behavior.

by tsdlts 6y ago

phkahler 6y ago

Ex post facto laws are forbidden by the US constitution.

btilly 6y ago
Only for criminal laws. Ex post facto laws allowing civil suits to be brought would be a different matter.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago

That's a good point. Where's the line between knowingingly circumventing the spirit of the law by following the letter. For example Teflon has been replaced with chemically similar compounds that just aren't Teflon. It'll take decades for the studies to come in, in the mean time every human is being exposed to these chemicals in significant amounts. Then we have bpa, Neonicotinoids and other pesticides. We have cases where companies knowingly sell talc contaminated with asbestos for decades. We know these products kill people, we now the companies that make thenknow they are killing people and yet we can't claw back decades of fraudulently acquired profits and revenues? Imo, we should treat these behaviors like Nazis where everything they touched gets seized, even decades later. If that ruins some lives, well, whose worse off? The injured class or the child who inherited blood money?

tsdlts 6y ago
Isn't this a regulation failure though? The fact that these chemicals who we don't know the full effects of are let to market is the problem. Preventative measures make more sense than criminalizing things only when we find out there's a problem. Also, what if the company has been acquired since then, is it still on the hook? What if they've since switched markets entirely? What if the company disbanded and the founders created a new company in the same market? There's no clean way to deal out punishment in a legally unambiguous or overreaching way.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
  It is 100% a regulation failure. The longer that companies are allowed to pervert government for private gain the louder and more extreme the demands from the disaffected will become.
- wnoise 6y ago
  > Isn't this a regulation failure though? Both/And. It's a regulation failure, and the unscrupulous take advantage it.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  It's a failure by regulators, but when you lobby for the lax regulations, you don't get to also stick them with the blame. > Also, what if the company has been acquired since then, is it still on the hook? It might not be clean, but I do believe it is unambiguous. Yes, the purchaser is still on the hook, and they should check their purchase agreement for the company to see if they can seek restitution from the original owners (assuming the risk of future litigation wasn't disclosed or waived). In this case the company knew they were externalizing a toxic chemical and did it anyways, thus they are liable to the extent the law allows. The original owner is potentially liable for breach of the purchase agreement if that risk wasn't disclosed to the new owner.

acdha 6y ago

There’s a difference between going after people versus continued businesses, and also randomly criminalizing something versus saying that you had plenty of your own lab data showing that it wasn’t good. They knew this stuff was toxic - that’s why they had to secretly dispose of it at sea rather than just the city dump - so it’s pretty different than, say, suing you because your great-grandfather failed to setup an effective anti-cholera regimen.

MrFantastic 6y ago

Corporations live forever. They should have an unlimited Statue of Limitations as well.

stjohnswarts 6y ago
That will never stand up in court.
- Supermancho 6y ago
  The OP implied that such a law doesn't exist, but there's nothing inherently unconstitutional about a new legislative act to enforce the concept. > That will never stand up in court. What's your point or objection to a hypothetical future?
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    > What's your point or objection to a hypothetical future? "Equality under the law" is a pretty strong argument. Corporations are legal people, and the law treats all people the same. Setting up classes of people with different laws that apply differently is absolutely not something that would fly.
    - tomjakubowski 6y ago
      What do you mean? Even within the category of corporate "people", different types of corporations are regulated differently by the law.
    - Supermancho 6y ago
      > Corporations are legal people That is incorrect. Under some contexts and situations, they are treated and considered the same as people. This is not the same thing. IBM isn't sent a ballot to vote, it is not a "legal person".
    - triceratops 6y ago
      > Corporations are legal people, and the law treats all people the same. I've never heard of a corporation going to jail or being given the chair.

formerly_proven 6y ago

Does ex post facto even apply to fining business? Doubtful. It doesn't even apply in civil matters against people.

cma 6y ago

Liability for damages that you directly benefited from within one or two generations. That it wasn't illegal doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't a tort your estate was liable for, even if harm was only understood later.

headmelted 6y ago

All the more disincentive to carry out such evil and heinous acts in the first place. I'm sure the people of Libby, Montana would have an interesting take on this.

birdyrooster 6y ago

Nope, and based on your explanation feel more comfortable moving forward with laws like this.

majormajor 6y ago

Lots of people here so worried about hypothetical future wrongs that they will shrug away existing past wrongs. We've gotten way too fixated on the theoretical worst case to realize that we're already living in a pretty bad story. Let's deal with future harms when they happen, but let's deal with existing ones now.

tsdlts 6y ago
You don't offer any solution, other than "something should be done." Who delivers the punishment for crimes rendered? The government does. By what authority does this government have to execute punishments outside of the law? If the government has authority to execute punishment outside of the law then it becomes judge, jury and executioner. That's not a hypothetical, when there is power, those who wield that power will use it. Is there really any doubt that this would extend beyond just chemical dumping to other things? To me there isn't.

mullen 6y ago

It's Environmental Blood money. Imagine if your grandfather or great grandfather killed people in the Concentration camps and then harvested all the gold and silver from their victims and then left that money to you? You live in wealth from others destroyed lives. This is a same thing but with the ramifications relieved later. People who knowingly dumped toxic sludge into the environment, cashed in a portion of my life so they and their children and grandchildren could live wealthy lives. And yes, it was all legal in both cases too.

silexia 6y ago
I think your argument makes sense. It's a version of the stolen property laws... Even if you didn't know it was stolen, you have no right to keep it.

chowned 6y ago

Imagine being able to destroy the environment with impunity. You get rich, and everyone else is forced to live (or die) with the consequences. Well, you don't have to imagine it, because that's reality.

merpnderp 6y ago

The US Constitution explicitly prohibits ex post facto laws (laws after the fact). It isn't even an amendment, but so important the original document prohibited congress from criminalizing past legal behavior.