4 ms·

> And so you really don’t want to set up a situation where the operators of a company are by-default responsible for anything that their company does. I think

by rlpb 2y ago

> And so you really don’t want to set up a situation where the operators of a company are by-default responsible for anything that their company does. I think you're conflating criminality with civil liability here (covering legal risk taking and mere incompetence). The former is what's under discussion here. The latter is what allows entrepreneurs to take risk for economic benefit.

keiferski 2y ago
Sure they are different things, but culturally I do think they are treated interchangeably. The average person on the street probably couldn’t tell you if X celebrity was embroiled in a civil or criminal trial, merely that they’re in a trial. I still think it would be very anti-entrepreneurial culture to make company operators liable by default for everything their company does. Again the key word phrase here is “by default” and that obviously excludes executives knowingly committing crimes. But this distinction doesn’t seem to be understood by many commenters on this Boeing topic.
- rlpb 2y ago
  > I still think it would be very anti-entrepreneurial culture to make company operators liable by default for everything their company does. Again, by missing out the distinction in this sentence, you're using the implied (valid) case to limit civil liability to make it sound like the same should apply for criminal liability. You're failing to explain why arguments for this in the civil liability case should also apply in the criminal case.
  - keiferski 2y ago
    Because I think it would still result in a culture that is hostile to entrepreneurship not dissimilar to how bankruptcy is treated in other countries. And just to be clear here, I’m arguing against the idea that company operators should be by-default guilty if the company they operate commits a crime. Because that is what a lot of commenters here are arguing for. Not that they should be not be liable for crimes they personally, knowingly, commit.
- mxkopy 2y ago
  > The average person on the street probably couldn’t tell you if X celebrity was embroiled in a civil or criminal trial, merely that they’re in a trial. Source? I think the difference between criminal and civil cases is great enough that a precedent for one need not apply to the other. If you’re investigating dead bodies it’s a vastly different situation than a he-said-she-said whatever case and should be persecuted differently.
  - keiferski 2y ago
    What kind of source do you expect me to give you? A study that interviews random people and asks them if they know the difference between civil and criminal law? I’d be very surprised if that has ever been done. It’s merely my opinion that the difference between civil and criminal law is largely unclear to the average person. In defense of that I’d say my own anecdotal experience, the behavior of people during the recent ex-president’s trials, and the plethora of questions asking about it online. I think most people put “law” and “court” into one big bucket and don’t make too many sub divisions. I’m not sure what else I could give as evidence here.
    - mxkopy 2y ago
      My experience is way different, I think most people understand criminal and civil cases as “the cops arrest you” vs “you need to go to a hearing”, which in most cases is the practical difference. Either way I think your overall point of not disincentivizing entrepreneurship is correct, unless people are dying or otherwise being hurt as a result of it.
      - rlpb 2y ago
        > which in most cases is the practical difference I would argue that the main difference is that a civil judgement usually results in "only" some combination of a damages award and (when damages cannot remedy) an injunction, but only a criminal case can result in sanctions such as imprisonment.

by rlpb 2y ago

keiferski 2y ago

Sure they are different things, but culturally I do think they are treated interchangeably. The average person on the street probably couldn’t tell you if X celebrity was embroiled in a civil or criminal trial, merely that they’re in a trial. I still think it would be very anti-entrepreneurial culture to make company operators liable by default for everything their company does. Again the key word phrase here is “by default” and that obviously excludes executives knowingly committing crimes. But this distinction doesn’t seem to be understood by many commenters on this Boeing topic.

rlpb 2y ago
> I still think it would be very anti-entrepreneurial culture to make company operators liable by default for everything their company does. Again, by missing out the distinction in this sentence, you're using the implied (valid) case to limit civil liability to make it sound like the same should apply for criminal liability. You're failing to explain why arguments for this in the civil liability case should also apply in the criminal case.
- keiferski 2y ago
  Because I think it would still result in a culture that is hostile to entrepreneurship not dissimilar to how bankruptcy is treated in other countries. And just to be clear here, I’m arguing against the idea that company operators should be by-default guilty if the company they operate commits a crime. Because that is what a lot of commenters here are arguing for. Not that they should be not be liable for crimes they personally, knowingly, commit.
mxkopy 2y ago
> The average person on the street probably couldn’t tell you if X celebrity was embroiled in a civil or criminal trial, merely that they’re in a trial. Source? I think the difference between criminal and civil cases is great enough that a precedent for one need not apply to the other. If you’re investigating dead bodies it’s a vastly different situation than a he-said-she-said whatever case and should be persecuted differently.
- keiferski 2y ago
  What kind of source do you expect me to give you? A study that interviews random people and asks them if they know the difference between civil and criminal law? I’d be very surprised if that has ever been done. It’s merely my opinion that the difference between civil and criminal law is largely unclear to the average person. In defense of that I’d say my own anecdotal experience, the behavior of people during the recent ex-president’s trials, and the plethora of questions asking about it online. I think most people put “law” and “court” into one big bucket and don’t make too many sub divisions. I’m not sure what else I could give as evidence here.
  - mxkopy 2y ago
    My experience is way different, I think most people understand criminal and civil cases as “the cops arrest you” vs “you need to go to a hearing”, which in most cases is the practical difference. Either way I think your overall point of not disincentivizing entrepreneurship is correct, unless people are dying or otherwise being hurt as a result of it.
    - rlpb 2y ago
      > which in most cases is the practical difference I would argue that the main difference is that a civil judgement usually results in "only" some combination of a damages award and (when damages cannot remedy) an injunction, but only a criminal case can result in sanctions such as imprisonment.