Who cares? Talking about specific corporations/companies is just derailing the discussion. An effective, enforceable deterrent against countries from committing

Who cares? Talking about specific corporations/companies is just derailing the discussion. An effective, enforceable deterrent against countries from committing genocide should apply to all countries, and an effective, enforceable deterrent against companies murdering people should apply to all companies. It seems like you're trying to make the argument that some companies don't need a rule against murder because they wouldn't commit murder, but that's absurd. It isn't unfair to have a rule against murder apply to a company that wouldn't commit murder. That's just how rules work, and if you have to pretend you don't understand that, I start to think you're just grasping at straws to try to justify being against a rule against murder for companies. If you're generally against economic regulation for companies, you might correctly point out that companies committing murder is a pretty extreme example, and most regulations aren't against such extremes. But that's missing the point. The situation is that extreme; people within corporations are committing murders and the corporations are receiving, at best, slap on the wrist fines or civil settlements that only affect shareholders and rarely affect the decision-makers who committed murder. No matter how anti-regulation you are, surely we can agree that "we can't have a rule against murder" is too little regulation?