3 ms·

> Companies can't really be expected to police themselves. Not so long as we don't punish them for failure to. We need a corporate death penalty for an organiz

> Companies can't really be expected to police themselves. Not so long as we don't punish them for failure to. We need a corporate death penalty for an organization that, say, knowingly conspires to destroy the planet's habitability. Then the bean counters might calculate the risk of doing so as unacceptable. We're so ready and willing to punish individuals for harm they do to other individuals, but if you get together in a group then suddenly you can plot the downfall of civilization and get a light fine and carry on.

measurablefunc 11mo ago
“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.” ― Voltaire
- candiddevmike 11mo ago
  See also: just war theory
  - measurablefunc 11mo ago
    People can manage to find justifications for all sorts of atrocities, including destruction of the biosphere.
    - cortesoft 11mo ago
      Just a few days ago, someone replied to one of my comments saying that considering the lives of people who aren't born yet is a completely immoral thing to do, meaning making anyone alive today sacrifice something to protect the planet in 100 years is immoral. So I guess people can find all sorts of justifications.
      - measurablefunc 11mo ago
        It is the inevitable outcome of materialism, hedonism, & short-term thinking. I think it's going to get worse before it gets any better.
      - zzo38computer 11mo ago
        Of course that is wrong and it is not immoral; but, if you want to do it in the moral way, you have to consider the lives of any living things (plants and animals), including but not limited to humans. Furthermore, there is the consideration of what exactly has to be sacrificed and what kind of coercion is being used (which might be immoral for a different reason); morals is not as simple like they would say. But, yes people do find all sorts of justifications, whether or not they are any good (although sometimes it is not immediately clear if it is any good, unfortunately).
        cortesoft 11mo ago
        > but, if you want to do it in the moral way, you have to consider the lives of any living things Wait, why? You can have morals that don't treat all living things as equal.
      - lenkite 11mo ago
        People are being harmed today, not just hypothetical people born 100 years later.
    - immibis 11mo ago
      Just yesterday another HN user told me that always-on DRM is a pure benefit for the consumer, when it comes from Valve Software.
    - CWIZO 11mo ago
      Prime example: animal agriculture. By far the biggest driver of biodiversity loss and nature destruction. Yet people justify it constantly with trivial things like taste, convinience, tradition, etc.
      - aniviacat 11mo ago
        Perhaps also being uninformed? I personally don't know why loss of biodiversity would be bad. Is that common knowledge?
- zelphirkalt 11mo ago
  Problem remains: What do we do, if others don't care and violently start killing our group? Do we reward them, throwing away all our weapons and making them our new government? This question of course currently has a very real real world parallel.
popalchemist 11mo ago
Well said, and yes, this is practically what must happen.
pear01 11mo ago
Corporate death penalty as in terminate the corporation? Why not the actual death penalty? Or put another way, why not sanctions on the individuals these entities are made up of? It strikes me that qualified immunity for police/government officials and the protections of hiding behind incorporation serve the same purpose - little to no individual accountability when these entities do wrong. Piercing the corporate veil and pursuing a loss of qualified immunity are both difficult - in some cases, often impossible - to accomplish in court, thus incentivizing bad behavior for individuals with those protections. Maybe a reform of those ideas or protocols would be useful and address the tension you highlight between how we treat "individuals" vs individuals acting in the name of particular entities. As an aside, both protections have interesting nuances and commonalities. I believe they also highlight another tension (on the flip-side of punishment) between the ability of regular people to hold individuals at these entities accountable in civil suits vs the government maintaining a monopoly on going after individuals. This monopoly can easily lead to corruption (obvious in the qualified immunity case, less obvious but still blatant in the corporate case, where these entities and their officers give politicians and prosecutors millions and millions of dollars). As George Carlin said, it's a big club. And you ain't in it.
- bikelang 11mo ago
  Just nationalize the company. Make shareholders fear this so much that they keep executives in check.
  - pear01 11mo ago
    Sounds like a very extreme remedy. Not sure you want whatever government is elected every four years to have this power. Doesn't address the concern re regulatory capture, could lead to worse government incentives. Why not focus on allowing regular people to more realistically hold corporations and their owners/officers liable in civil courts? It's already hard enough given the imbalance of funds, access and power... but often legal doctrine makes the bar to clear impossible at the outset.
    - bikelang 11mo ago
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
foxglacier 11mo ago
The group of pretty much all humans is such a group because we all conspire to burn fossil fuels. Do you really think a global civilization death penalty is a good idea? That's throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
defanor 11mo ago
> We're so ready and willing to punish individuals for harm they do to other individuals, but if you get together in a group then suddenly you can plot the downfall of civilization and get a light fine and carry on. Surely "plot the downfall of civilization" is an exaggeration. Knowing that certain actions have harmful consequences to the environment or the humanity, and nevertheless persisting in them, is what many individuals lawfully do without getting together.

measurablefunc 11mo ago

“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.” ― Voltaire

candiddevmike 11mo ago
See also: just war theory
- measurablefunc 11mo ago
  People can manage to find justifications for all sorts of atrocities, including destruction of the biosphere.
  - cortesoft 11mo ago
    Just a few days ago, someone replied to one of my comments saying that considering the lives of people who aren't born yet is a completely immoral thing to do, meaning making anyone alive today sacrifice something to protect the planet in 100 years is immoral. So I guess people can find all sorts of justifications.
    - measurablefunc 11mo ago
      It is the inevitable outcome of materialism, hedonism, & short-term thinking. I think it's going to get worse before it gets any better.
    - zzo38computer 11mo ago
      Of course that is wrong and it is not immoral; but, if you want to do it in the moral way, you have to consider the lives of any living things (plants and animals), including but not limited to humans. Furthermore, there is the consideration of what exactly has to be sacrificed and what kind of coercion is being used (which might be immoral for a different reason); morals is not as simple like they would say. But, yes people do find all sorts of justifications, whether or not they are any good (although sometimes it is not immediately clear if it is any good, unfortunately).
      - cortesoft 11mo ago
        > but, if you want to do it in the moral way, you have to consider the lives of any living things Wait, why? You can have morals that don't treat all living things as equal.
    - lenkite 11mo ago
      People are being harmed today, not just hypothetical people born 100 years later.
  - immibis 11mo ago
    Just yesterday another HN user told me that always-on DRM is a pure benefit for the consumer, when it comes from Valve Software.
  - CWIZO 11mo ago
    Prime example: animal agriculture. By far the biggest driver of biodiversity loss and nature destruction. Yet people justify it constantly with trivial things like taste, convinience, tradition, etc.
    - aniviacat 11mo ago
      Perhaps also being uninformed? I personally don't know why loss of biodiversity would be bad. Is that common knowledge?
zelphirkalt 11mo ago
Problem remains: What do we do, if others don't care and violently start killing our group? Do we reward them, throwing away all our weapons and making them our new government? This question of course currently has a very real real world parallel.

popalchemist 11mo ago

Well said, and yes, this is practically what must happen.

pear01 11mo ago

Corporate death penalty as in terminate the corporation? Why not the actual death penalty? Or put another way, why not sanctions on the individuals these entities are made up of? It strikes me that qualified immunity for police/government officials and the protections of hiding behind incorporation serve the same purpose - little to no individual accountability when these entities do wrong. Piercing the corporate veil and pursuing a loss of qualified immunity are both difficult - in some cases, often impossible - to accomplish in court, thus incentivizing bad behavior for individuals with those protections. Maybe a reform of those ideas or protocols would be useful and address the tension you highlight between how we treat "individuals" vs individuals acting in the name of particular entities. As an aside, both protections have interesting nuances and commonalities. I believe they also highlight another tension (on the flip-side of punishment) between the ability of regular people to hold individuals at these entities accountable in civil suits vs the government maintaining a monopoly on going after individuals. This monopoly can easily lead to corruption (obvious in the qualified immunity case, less obvious but still blatant in the corporate case, where these entities and their officers give politicians and prosecutors millions and millions of dollars). As George Carlin said, it's a big club. And you ain't in it.

bikelang 11mo ago
Just nationalize the company. Make shareholders fear this so much that they keep executives in check.
- pear01 11mo ago
  Sounds like a very extreme remedy. Not sure you want whatever government is elected every four years to have this power. Doesn't address the concern re regulatory capture, could lead to worse government incentives. Why not focus on allowing regular people to more realistically hold corporations and their owners/officers liable in civil courts? It's already hard enough given the imbalance of funds, access and power... but often legal doctrine makes the bar to clear impossible at the outset.
  - bikelang 11mo ago

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

foxglacier 11mo ago

The group of pretty much all humans is such a group because we all conspire to burn fossil fuels. Do you really think a global civilization death penalty is a good idea? That's throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

defanor 11mo ago

> We're so ready and willing to punish individuals for harm they do to other individuals, but if you get together in a group then suddenly you can plot the downfall of civilization and get a light fine and carry on. Surely "plot the downfall of civilization" is an exaggeration. Knowing that certain actions have harmful consequences to the environment or the humanity, and nevertheless persisting in them, is what many individuals lawfully do without getting together.