> The government is the problem in that situation, as it's responsible for making sure those things don't happen. The government would certainly be complicit i

> The government is the problem in that situation, as it's responsible for making sure those things don't happen. The government would certainly be complicit in this scenario, but is the corporation doing the act not still responsible for their actions? The corporation is still the actor that is motivated to do "the bad thing" (ie: cut safety features to save money), and then lobbies the complicit government to turn a blind eye. The phrasing of this seems to imply that corporations can do whatever they want as long as they play by the rules, and then puts the full blame on the government because they either failed to provide a "perfect" ruleset or they were actively complicit in turning a blind eye. I know technically "doing whatever they want as long as they play by the rules" is in practice just following the letter of the law, but are they not responsible for taking some degree of responsibility beyond that?