4 ms·

I think you're conflating absolute and relative 'cost'. The rich might have to pay settlements for their wrongdoing but for a multi billionaire a 1m settlement

I think you're conflating absolute and relative 'cost'. The rich might have to pay settlements for their wrongdoing but for a multi billionaire a 1m settlement is more of a hassle for the time it wastes than the money itself. The rich rarely have to pay so much that it genuinely hurts. Any fines levied by the EEOC are likely to be an absolute slap on the wrist.

robertlagrant 3y ago
They still have to go to jail if they're criminals. Our goal shouldn't be to make people genuinely hurt in any situation.
- plagiarist 3y ago
  They don't always go to jail when they should. They might have a preexisting condition like affluenza that keeps them out. The goal of fines and punishments should be that they are painful enough to deter the action. It is a strawman to pretend we are discussing "any situation." Contracts are important for the economy to function. Violating the terms of this many contracts should be painful, like "strip the liability protection of the company structure," painful IMO.
- yborg 3y ago
  Show me the list of billionaires jailed that aren't in prison because of some more powerful billionaire strongman that they were foolish enough to cross.
  - dumpsterlid 3y ago
    [dead]
- Aeolun 3y ago
  > Our goal shouldn't be to make people genuinely hurt in any situation. What? No. That’s the whole point of the fine. If it’s just another random expense then it’s not an effective deterrent. If the rich guy goes to jail for two weeks because he fucked over some poor people it’s not an effective deterrent. If the poor guy goes to jail for 20 years because he ripped off some rich people it’s just a step shy of a private police force.
  - golergka 3y ago
    > What? No. That’s the whole point of the fine. If it’s just another random expense then it’s not an effective deterrent. Why not? The damage is compensated in absolute terms, the price is paid.
    - Aeolun 3y ago
      Only if you want to normalize the behavior. Giving specific behavior a fixed monetary cost means rich people aren’t bound by the law.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        All fines give behaviour a fixed monetary value. Does that mean no-one is bound by law?
        palata 3y ago
        You missed the point. Given monetary value does not mean no-one is bound by the law. It's if the monetary value is so low that it doesn't matter for the particular individual that suddenly, the individual is not bound by law anymore. Is it really that hard to understand?
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        It's easy to understand; just not easy to agree with. The law's job is to enforce penalties and rights equally, blindly even, and not to scale everything according to someone's individual circumstance.
        palata 3y ago
        Well your previous message suggested that it was not understood. Apparently it is, and you just disagree. Then we seem to differ on our view of "equal rights". To me, the law defines what should not be done ("is illegal"), and how one prevents people from doing it. Now if the law defines a fine that is high enough to prevent me from doing something illegal, but seen by a super-rich like I would see 1 cent, then we are not equal: the super-rich is effectively allowed to do it (as in, "nothing prevents him from doing it, because from his point of view he doesn't have to pay anything"), and I am not (because I can't afford it).
- bjornasm 3y ago
  >They still have to go to jail if they're criminals. Genuine question: do they?

robertlagrant 3y ago

They still have to go to jail if they're criminals. Our goal shouldn't be to make people genuinely hurt in any situation.

plagiarist 3y ago
They don't always go to jail when they should. They might have a preexisting condition like affluenza that keeps them out. The goal of fines and punishments should be that they are painful enough to deter the action. It is a strawman to pretend we are discussing "any situation." Contracts are important for the economy to function. Violating the terms of this many contracts should be painful, like "strip the liability protection of the company structure," painful IMO.
yborg 3y ago
Show me the list of billionaires jailed that aren't in prison because of some more powerful billionaire strongman that they were foolish enough to cross.
- dumpsterlid 3y ago
  [dead]
Aeolun 3y ago
> Our goal shouldn't be to make people genuinely hurt in any situation. What? No. That’s the whole point of the fine. If it’s just another random expense then it’s not an effective deterrent. If the rich guy goes to jail for two weeks because he fucked over some poor people it’s not an effective deterrent. If the poor guy goes to jail for 20 years because he ripped off some rich people it’s just a step shy of a private police force.
- golergka 3y ago
  > What? No. That’s the whole point of the fine. If it’s just another random expense then it’s not an effective deterrent. Why not? The damage is compensated in absolute terms, the price is paid.
  - Aeolun 3y ago
    Only if you want to normalize the behavior. Giving specific behavior a fixed monetary cost means rich people aren’t bound by the law.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      All fines give behaviour a fixed monetary value. Does that mean no-one is bound by law?
      - palata 3y ago
        You missed the point. Given monetary value does not mean no-one is bound by the law. It's if the monetary value is so low that it doesn't matter for the particular individual that suddenly, the individual is not bound by law anymore. Is it really that hard to understand?
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        It's easy to understand; just not easy to agree with. The law's job is to enforce penalties and rights equally, blindly even, and not to scale everything according to someone's individual circumstance.
        palata 3y ago
        Well your previous message suggested that it was not understood. Apparently it is, and you just disagree. Then we seem to differ on our view of "equal rights". To me, the law defines what should not be done ("is illegal"), and how one prevents people from doing it. Now if the law defines a fine that is high enough to prevent me from doing something illegal, but seen by a super-rich like I would see 1 cent, then we are not equal: the super-rich is effectively allowed to do it (as in, "nothing prevents him from doing it, because from his point of view he doesn't have to pay anything"), and I am not (because I can't afford it).
bjornasm 3y ago
>They still have to go to jail if they're criminals. Genuine question: do they?