4 ms·
Along with banning the chemicals, the corporation could be “murdered”. Like a death sentence for a corp. They would cease to exist in that country. I’m sure thi
by efnx 4y ago
Along with banning the chemicals, the corporation could be “murdered”. Like a death sentence for a corp. They would cease to exist in that country. I’m sure this would make them think much harder about the effects of their actions.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y agoI sort of like this line of reasoning. Though in penal contexts I'm against the death penalty and favour a rehabilitation based approach. So maybe if the government seized control the corporation for a time, to rehabilitate it?
- henry_bone 4y agoYou'd trust a government with that? I wouldn't. It may be simplistic but I think that the judiciary applying firm measures designed to protect the public and the biosphere, is the best approach.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y agoI tend to agree. But I could see scenarios where "corporate jail" might be an option in extreme circumstances. I.e where the corp is too integral to the public to leave to whatever power games result from shaking up the company theough fines and sending executives to jail(which we should do far more of by the way...). It also depends though. Which government? I would have far lower credence in trusting the US government with this compared to some European governments that came out of a healthier democracy than the US. But that also goes for the regulations necessary for your less radical approach.
- bamboozled 4y agoSounds a bit 1984. Ultimately most CEOs are probably psychopaths. What would be useful is banning psychopaths from there positions as they lack empathy. Not sure if we can reliably tell who is a psychopath but it’s always going to be an issue.
- totetsu 4y agoIsn't this what delayed prosecution agreements do? The company has to rehabilitate from the noncompliant behaviour or face full penalties.
- autoexec 4y ago> So maybe if the government seized control the corporation for a time, to rehabilitate it? I could see that working in some areas, like military suppliers. Most of the time though it'd be bad to give the government any opportunity to generate profit from law enforcement actions. It could incentivize terrible behavior.
- throwaway09223 4y agoThe equivalent action is simply a fine such that the assets are gone. It's pointless to dissolve a corporation, as new ones can be formed. A corporation is just a formal name and structure we give to a group of people working together. The way to destroy means is to seize assets.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y agoCurrently though, the relationship between the fine and the profitability of the transgression seems wrong. The fines seem to be too low to be an effective deterrent. In addition, white collar crime is punished far too leniently, given their often outsized societal effects.
- karmanyaahm 4y agoI think by seize assets GP means a fine of 100% of the net worth of the company
- ryandrake 4y agoFine them 100% of their assets’ value and make shareholders personally responsible for any debt, proportional to their equity ownership stake.
- WanderPanda 4y agoOr alternatively walking back the „limited“ liability. Would probably kill all innovation though
- kelseyfrog 4y agoLimited liability sets up an incentive structure in some industries to create business with negative environmental externalities. They use the limitations of liability as a stop loss measure while converting environmental harms into profit. Simply make environmental liability unlimited.
- 4y ago
- quantum_magpie 4y agoCEO's love spouting that they have all the responsibility, so chuck them in jail for 50 years. They do so much more damage to the society than even murderers, it's time for some fucking accountability.
- javajosh 4y agoThat risk would justify their salaries, somewhat.
- __MatrixMan__ 4y agoSame for the top shareholders. I get in trouble if my dog bites somebody, it should be no different for a corporation.
- fingerlocks 4y agoWhy stop there? It should be ALL shareholders face imprisonment. That will make you think twice about diversifying your stock portfolio!
- __MatrixMan__ 4y agoIf I own 0.001% of a company which has to do 100 years of jailtime, it doesn't make sense to pay the overhead costs of jailing me for eight hours. Maybe I should do community service related to the harms my company caused or something like that instead.
- fingerlocks 4y agoIt wasn’t obvious in retrospect, but I was being completely sarcastic. Anyone holding a managed retirement account or a mutual fund could be held liable.
- __MatrixMan__ 4y agoMaybe there could be provisions where the fund manager goes to jail instead in that case.
- amelius 4y agoThat will only lead to dubious constructs with shell corporations etc.
- thrashh 4y agoIt’s not like consumers don’t benefit from these chemicals Sure I could buy all metal products but I still don’t because I still like plastic and I’m well aware that it’s destroying the world, but plastic enables my current lifestyle and I currently enjoy my current lifestyle …As well as billions of other people. It’s not an issue of “companies being bad.” It’s because we all love our current way of life and no one really wants to stop the companies because most of us still want the products
- greyhair 4y agoSee Ciba-Geigy New Jersey