Industry will regulate itself ? Sure here is proof

Damocles said:
Total PRCD (political reading comprehension disorder).

What Damo says:
"I support laws that prevent companies from making victims of others."

What the PRCD sufferer hears:
"Damo thinks there should be no laws and that companies are the bestest!"
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant Dano.
 
AssHatZombie said:
See. Even the board takes a calculated risk; they consider the extra profits earned by selling tainted food versus their perceived risk of regulatory fines or catastrophes which would hurt them long term, as indiviuals. They don't really CARE about the company getting a bad name. That can go belly up and they start over again with a new corporate entity, including perhaps even more well connected partners to shield them from actual consequences.
Click to expand...
Yes, mostly they are taking advantage of laws that make the incorporation an entity with specific rights that protects their employee from direct responsibility.

It's preposterous at its face. Those responsible for the decisions, such as Ford with the Pinto, or another company to sell poison, should go to prison. The corporation shouldn't protect people from directly making victims of others.
 
AssHatZombie said:
See. Even the board takes a calculated risk; they consider the extra profits earned by selling tainted food versus their perceived risk of regulatory fines or catastrophes which would hurt them long term, as indiviuals. They don't really CARE about the company getting a bad name. That can go belly up and they start over again with a new corporate entity, including perhaps even more well connected partners to shield them from actual consequences.
Click to expand...
Yes, in order to create incentive for responsible action, those making the decisions must be fully responsible for their actions.

If they put these people into jail for putting others into danger, if they were prosecuted for murder when they chose to send out a product that they knew could kill, if they were prosecuted for negligence if they refused to test for dangers and unknowingly killed another...

Well, their action would be difference. There is a place for negative reinforcement. It shouldn't be used to disincentivize success, it should be used to disincentivize actions by people that would otherwise put them in prison if made by an "individual". Individuals made the decision for the corporation, individuals are responsible.

"The corporation" shouldn't be a blanket to shield people from irresponsible decisions to put others at risk purposefully.
 
Can you send someone to prison for making an unsafe car Damo? What level of safety is required before you are immune to being sent to prison for the car?

The government sets this requirement, and companies follow it because it's plain and obvious fact, and they know their competition has to follow it also. The infamous Pinto memos compared the cost of litigation from people who had lost loved ones to the car to the cost of making the changes to the car to make it safe.

And to people like Dano, who argue that regulation should be abolished, that is why litigation will not work as a replacement for regulation. One, because it only works after the fact. Two, because of the endless appeals system. And lastly, because the nature of the rulings will be haphazard and allows companies to gamble on what works and what doesn't.
 
Damocles said:
Yes, in order to create incentive for responsible action, those making the decisions must be fully responsible for their actions.

If they put these people into jail for putting others into danger, if they were prosecuted for murder when they chose to send out a product that they knew could kill, if they were prosecuted for negligence if they refused to test for dangers and unknowingly killed another...

Well, their action would be difference. There is a place for negative reinforcement. It shouldn't be used to disincentivize success, it should be used to disincentivize actions by people that would otherwise put them in prison if made by an "individual". Individuals made the decision for the corporation, individuals are responsible.

"The corporation" shouldn't be a blanket to shield people from irresponsible decisions to put others at risk purposefully.
Click to expand...

Well in this case their was clearly a single manager responsible. It's not so clear in others.

SMY's solution, to send everyone, even the packaging manager to prison for life and "maybe they'll think twice next time!" doesn't prevent it from happening in the first place.
 
Watermark said:
Can you send someone to prison for making an unsafe car Damo? What level of safety is required before you are immune to being sent to prison for the car?

The government sets this requirement, and companies follow it because it's plain and obvious fact, and they know their competition has to follow it also. The infamous Pinto memos compared the cost of litigation from people who had lost loved ones to the car to the cost of making the changes to the car to make it safe.

And to people like Dano, who argue that regulation should be abolished, that is why litigation will not work as a replacement for regulation. One, because it only works after the fact. Two, because of the endless appeals system. And lastly, because the nature of the rulings will be haphazard and allows companies to gamble on what works and what doesn't.
Click to expand...
Currently? No. Because if they are making decisions for a corporation our laws say that they are safe and the corporation would have to pay negligence claims.

IMO, should it happen? Yes. If it can be shown that they know about a defect, know people will die, yet sell the product anyway those people who made the decision should go to prison.
 
Watermark said:
Well in this case their was clearly a single manager responsible. It's not so clear in others.

SMY's solution, to send everyone, even the packaging manager to prison for life and "maybe they'll think twice next time!" doesn't prevent it from happening in the first place.
Click to expand...
And in some cases, there is a robber found and charged, and in some it isn't so clear.

If a 100% success rate is necessary to make a law the right thing, then we would have no laws.
 
Damocles said:
Currently? No. Because if they are making decisions for a corporation our laws say that they are safe and the corporation would have to pay negligence claims.

IMO, should it happen? Yes. If it can be shown that they know about a defect, know people will die, yet sell the product anyway those people who made the decision should go to prison.
Click to expand...

Can you send used car salesmen to prison for not selling cars with electronic computers that stabilize them? Do you have any idea how much more safe those cars are?
 
Damocles said:
And in some cases, there is a robber found and charged, and in some it isn't so clear.

If a 100% success rate is necessary to make a law the right thing, then we would have no laws.
Click to expand...

Simple regulation works better than haphazard litigation. They shouldn't have been allowed to send it to a private lab. The FDA allowed this to happen because conservatives said no to regulation. Simple as that.

Regulation prevents it from happening, litigation punishes no one.
 
Watermark said:
Can you send used car salesmen to prison for not selling cars with electronic computers that stabilize them? Do you have any idea how much more safe those cars are?
Click to expand...
Now you are going into stupid levels of inanity.

If the car salesman knows what he sells will kill people, then he is responsible. Even with laws today that is true.
 
Damocles said:
Now you are going into stupid levels of inanity.

If the car salesman knows what he sells will kill people, then he is responsible. Even with laws today that is true.
Click to expand...

All cars kill people.

A car salesman is only responsible for sailing things under the government limit. Which is why we need to raise the limit and increase oversight. But that's to complicated for a libertarian to comprehend.
 
Watermark said:
Simple regulation works better than haphazard litigation. They shouldn't have been allowed to send it to a private lab. The FDA allowed this to happen because conservatives said no to regulation. Simple as that.

Regulation prevents it from happening, litigation punishes no one.
Click to expand...
Regulation doesn't, of itself, stop anything at all from happening.

It is a regulation that the peanut factory ignored when they sold their product.

Inspections can prevent this in some cases, in others it cannot.

And who is saying anything about "litigation"?

I am talking about prison time for people who make decisions purposefully and with knowledge to sell a product that will kill others.
 
Watermark said:
All cars kill people.

A car salesman is only responsible for sailing things under the government limit. Which is why we need to raise the limit and increase oversight. But that's to complicated for a libertarian to comprehend.
Click to expand...
Rubbish, almost no cars kill people. Occasionally people have accidents that kill people.

And what part of my points in this thread where I have said that it is my opinion that we should make it so individuals who take these actions should serve prison time means that I can't understand your "complicated" point?

Your PRCD is showing up again.
 
Damocles said:
Rubbish, almost no cars kill people. Occasionally people have accidents that kill people.

And what part of my points in this thread where I have said that it is my opinion that we should make it so individuals who take these actions should serve prison time means that I can't understand your "complicated" point?

Your PRCD is showing up again.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Why were they allowed to ship the peanuts that the government knew were contaminated Dano? Why was this even possible? Republicans refusal to support sufficient oversight.
 
Watermark said:
:rolleyes:

Why were they allowed to ship the peanuts that the government knew were contaminated Dano? Why was this even possible? Republicans refusal to support sufficient oversight.
Click to expand...
They weren't "allowed" to. That is the point. They broke the law. Laws (regulations) do not guarantee that people won't break them. If they did courts would be unnecessary.

And I have several times in this thread spoke of oversight and inspections, your PRCD gets in the way.
 
Watermark said:
Maybe by actually regulating things, this wouldn't happen in the first place? That's too common sense for a libertarian to understand. He prefers collective punishment, which is a good, individualistic, libertarian idea.
Click to expand...

collective punishment is the brain child of liberal socialists. punishing everyone for the acts of a few. in other words, prior restraint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top