3 ms·

But this would have to be limited to cases where you can prove personal intent or personal gross negligence by the executive. Otherwise you’re effectively maki

But this would have to be limited to cases where you can prove personal intent or personal gross negligence by the executive. Otherwise you’re effectively making companies illegal.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
> Otherwise you’re effectively making companies illegal. It's more like making illegal behaviour by companies to be illegal. There's a disconnect where behaviour that would result in jail time for people, doesn't result in jail time if performed by companies and that seems wrong to me. If an individual poisons a water supply, they're not going to be getting just a fine.
- konschubert 3y ago
  I don’t think a lot of ppl would want to take a job where they are liable for the actions of others.
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    Don't underestimate the appeal of a 7 digit salary and the position of power you get with it. There a orders of magnitude more candidates for CEOs positions than there are jobs, so it's not like we would run out of people to do the job if we increased the responsibilities.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    Isn't that exactly what is required of CEOs and executives? If a company doesn't have liability for upper management, then where's their incentive to not instruct employees to behave illegally?
    - Wolfenstein98k 3y ago
      Instructing employees to behave illegally is illegal
      - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        That doesn't appear to be well enforced as otherwise companies wouldn't be able to get away (or at least maybe receive a fine at some point) with illegal activity. If a company is illegally dumping chemicals into the water, then there has to have been at least one instance where a higher up instructed employees to do so.
  - user_7832 3y ago
    In some (not all of course) of these discussions, the CEOs/other decision making executives have said things that were fairly explicitly "dangerous"/illegal. I'm not talking about "hold ceo responsible for something s/he wasn't aware of", I'm talking "hold them responsible when they instructed something even though they knew people would die" (eg see Ford Pinto).
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    It would be better for the world if those people do not take that job and tell/incentivize their employees to do illegal things. So win-win.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    It depends on the risk/reward ratio. It would certainly make megacorps non-viable, but I don't see why that is undesirable. If the average company size is scaled down to the level where such liability is actually manageable, it would also largely solve the problem with monopolies, so it's a win-win.
panta 3y ago
If you develop or sell something that has even a remote potential to kill someone, it's your responsibility to apply a cautionary principle and gather enough evidence that the probability of that outcome is negligible. Otherwise that IS gross negligence.

But this would have to be limited to cases where you can prove personal intent or personal gross negligence by the executive. Otherwise you’re effectively making companies illegal.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago

> Otherwise you’re effectively making companies illegal. It's more like making illegal behaviour by companies to be illegal. There's a disconnect where behaviour that would result in jail time for people, doesn't result in jail time if performed by companies and that seems wrong to me. If an individual poisons a water supply, they're not going to be getting just a fine.

konschubert 3y ago
I don’t think a lot of ppl would want to take a job where they are liable for the actions of others.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  Don't underestimate the appeal of a 7 digit salary and the position of power you get with it. There a orders of magnitude more candidates for CEOs positions than there are jobs, so it's not like we would run out of people to do the job if we increased the responsibilities.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  Isn't that exactly what is required of CEOs and executives? If a company doesn't have liability for upper management, then where's their incentive to not instruct employees to behave illegally?
  - Wolfenstein98k 3y ago
    Instructing employees to behave illegally is illegal
    - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
      That doesn't appear to be well enforced as otherwise companies wouldn't be able to get away (or at least maybe receive a fine at some point) with illegal activity. If a company is illegally dumping chemicals into the water, then there has to have been at least one instance where a higher up instructed employees to do so.
- user_7832 3y ago
  In some (not all of course) of these discussions, the CEOs/other decision making executives have said things that were fairly explicitly "dangerous"/illegal. I'm not talking about "hold ceo responsible for something s/he wasn't aware of", I'm talking "hold them responsible when they instructed something even though they knew people would die" (eg see Ford Pinto).
- ryandrake 3y ago
  It would be better for the world if those people do not take that job and tell/incentivize their employees to do illegal things. So win-win.
- int_19h 3y ago
  It depends on the risk/reward ratio. It would certainly make megacorps non-viable, but I don't see why that is undesirable. If the average company size is scaled down to the level where such liability is actually manageable, it would also largely solve the problem with monopolies, so it's a win-win.

panta 3y ago

If you develop or sell something that has even a remote potential to kill someone, it's your responsibility to apply a cautionary principle and gather enough evidence that the probability of that outcome is negligible. Otherwise that IS gross negligence.