4 ms·

>> And what about this? Imagine a world where the especially blood-sucking CEOs have a 1/10 chance of being assassinated. Don't you think that the regular expec

by tivert 2y ago

>> And what about this? Imagine a world where the especially blood-sucking CEOs have a 1/10 chance of being assassinated. Don't you think that the regular expectation of this might make them a little less blood-sucking? > If you can fairly and correctly evaluate which CEOs are especially blood sucking, simply taking their money and sending them to prison for a while will have the same effect and be far less ethically dubious. But that would require the buy in and cooperation of the state, which probably wouldn't work any better than the current political/judicial system, because elites like CEOs have disproportionate influence in controlling state behavior. The system is setup to primarily protect and serve people like them. I think the GP's idea was to add an extra-judicial check on CEO behavior that could be implemented by a motivated individual, and thus would be much harder for CEOs to subvert. Even the threat of assassination could have a restraining effect, because who wants to live in a bunker surrounded by guards? The blood-sucking CEO wouldn't be able to enjoy his ill-gotten gains. One (somewhat small) problem with the GP's idea is its focus on CEOs. One feature of capitalism is how it can obscure culpability and create scapegoats to misdirect anger and protect the principles. A CEO definitely has fault and responsibility for the company's actions, but he's ultimately a minion of the company's owners. Above the CEO things often get shadowy.

lucianbr 2y ago
Motivated individuals will make for an even less fair system. Current CEOs and politicians and rich businessmen are by far the most motivated individuals, with lots of resources at their disposal. Courts and laws have become corrupted, but you tink letting people at random make their own justice will not be corrupted? One of the reasons this even sounds remotely possible to you is we have not abandoned the idea of the rule of law. If it were abandoned outright, the CEOs (or whatever) would never be outside of protected areas and without guards and such. Ordinary citizens however, would not afford protection.

by tivert 2y ago

lucianbr 2y ago

Motivated individuals will make for an even less fair system. Current CEOs and politicians and rich businessmen are by far the most motivated individuals, with lots of resources at their disposal. Courts and laws have become corrupted, but you tink letting people at random make their own justice will not be corrupted? One of the reasons this even sounds remotely possible to you is we have not abandoned the idea of the rule of law. If it were abandoned outright, the CEOs (or whatever) would never be outside of protected areas and without guards and such. Ordinary citizens however, would not afford protection.