3 ms·

Nah they thought they were just gonna do whatever they wanted to forever no matter who got hurt. The rich and powerful always believe that, and they're usually

Nah they thought they were just gonna do whatever they wanted to forever no matter who got hurt. The rich and powerful always believe that, and they're usually 100% correct right up until the moment where they're 100% incorrect.

trod1234 2y ago
I suppose that would depend on your working definition of correctness. If correct means its legally unenforceable and practical and you only take that into consideration in isolation, then yes, right up until logarithmic error occurs, as you say. The brass verdict is not a new concept, you see it show up in movies all the time like for example, The Beekeeper with Jason Statham. Unfortunately it is a fairly sound and established fact that violence happens more often when law fails to serve its primary function for the people. In a "rule of law", non-violent conflict management takes place. This is one of its primary purposes. When the requirements for a "rule of law" degrade into a "rule by law" regardless of what members of such systems may claim (people may be delusional,blind, or lie), through corruption or otherwise, these things inevitably occur since there is no other means to resolve conflict. This may just be one more example where business people win so much that they lose. When someone is at the top of a company, you are responsible not only for your actions, but for those under you as well. People in those positions must always be vigilant to inaction more than action, including those actions of others who are under your purview because inaction or failure to oversee is an action itself and a choice that is favored by many absent any information under many common management styles today. This is a sad story, but the news rarely covers anything other than fire flood or blood. If it doesn't bleed, it doesn't lead, or so the newsies say.

trod1234 2y ago

I suppose that would depend on your working definition of correctness. If correct means its legally unenforceable and practical and you only take that into consideration in isolation, then yes, right up until logarithmic error occurs, as you say. The brass verdict is not a new concept, you see it show up in movies all the time like for example, The Beekeeper with Jason Statham. Unfortunately it is a fairly sound and established fact that violence happens more often when law fails to serve its primary function for the people. In a "rule of law", non-violent conflict management takes place. This is one of its primary purposes. When the requirements for a "rule of law" degrade into a "rule by law" regardless of what members of such systems may claim (people may be delusional,blind, or lie), through corruption or otherwise, these things inevitably occur since there is no other means to resolve conflict. This may just be one more example where business people win so much that they lose. When someone is at the top of a company, you are responsible not only for your actions, but for those under you as well. People in those positions must always be vigilant to inaction more than action, including those actions of others who are under your purview because inaction or failure to oversee is an action itself and a choice that is favored by many absent any information under many common management styles today. This is a sad story, but the news rarely covers anything other than fire flood or blood. If it doesn't bleed, it doesn't lead, or so the newsies say.