4 ms·
> If suddenly a massive number of cars are stolen, that's the government's problem. I have no idea why you jump to that conclusion. The problem is clearly the
by grecy 2y ago
> If suddenly a massive number of cars are stolen, that's the government's problem.
I have no idea why you jump to that conclusion.
The problem is clearly the person breaking the law.
But anyway, going with what you said...
> So it seems reasonable that the manufacturer in question should be sued
Wait, if it's the government's problem, then THEY should be sued for not requiring manufacturers to have these anti-theft devices (as the Canadian government does). The auto manufacturer is building cars precisely as the US government mandated them to.
It seems like you're trying to bend logic to blame anyone and everyone other than the people who are breaking the law.
- ethbr1 2y agoI'm not sure where you're reading that the thief shouldn't also be charged. That's obvious, but if you need me to spell it out: yes. What I'm talking about is how companies should bear liability for the social consequences of their choices.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoAccording to what legal theory?
- ethbr1 2y agoNegligence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort#Negligence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort#Negligence
- MichaelZuo 2y agoThe linked page doesn’t define ‘social consequences of their choices’ nor do any of the linked or cited texts, and most don’t even touch on the issue of differences between ‘companies’ making a choice and individuals within the companies making a choice. Is there a more credible source?