Should Corporate persons resonsible for death, have their rights strip

[bloodyminded]

Let me rephrase that, their boards of directors should include representatives elected by people who live in the jurisdictions corporations operate in. And I repeat, especially corporations that are in the business of resource extraction or whose activities impact the environment and ecosystems that people rely on.

As you'll see by M Dancer's post, he hasn't the faintest idea what he's talking about. And this doesn't bother him.

[ToadBrother]

Boards already have directors elected by people who live in the jurisdictions corporations operate in.

Could we have another moonbat proposal?

Perhaps we should have cameras installed on the heads of the Members of the Board. Another idea brought to you be Eyeball.

[Timothy17]

I started typing out a response to this paragraph, but I deleted it all because I'm not sure you're the kind of person I want to discuss these matters with. Without elaborating, virtually all of this above paragraph is incoherent or just plain wrong.

I think, Bob, I didn't express myself well if that's how it came across. One could mention the slave trade as an example of an industry (now dead, thankfully) that ultimately profited from injustice. The fact that is was profitable made it difficult to stop. Simply fining (e.g, for excessive abuse(s)) or heavily taxing something like the slave trade would not have served justice, regardless of how much "good" those public revenues did.

I may regret asking you this, but have you any examples of activities that need to be stopped?

I'm not sure I want to start thinking about it lol- there's probably a lot of economic activity that is not only needless but inherently destructive. One of the arguments levied against Free Trade was the use of child labour; however, that was not confined to any one industry, and the practice has been persecuted by law for some time now.

As an extreme example, though I understand not shared by all, I would venture to say the abortion industry is one example of economic activity had at the expense of justice.

I think we could have an interesting discussion over how well our justice system has prosecuted corporations and associated guilty parties (i.e. CEOs of companies who were complicit in mobilizing the company towards illegal activity), but this is a different topic than what you seem to be driving at.

Well, in my original post I said a wise government (in Real Politik terms) would make a point of exacting punitive revenues from corporations that were found to be engaged in illegal activity. Determining the balance of when and how much and for what would be an interesting discussion.

What companies have been "cut slack" with respect to "basic principles of justice"?

Well, we could say certain companies that accepted the Bail Outs were cut a lot of slack. These companies had voluntarily engaged in reckless and irresponsible behaviour and helped jeopardize the entire economy by it. Why they fancied themselves worthy of being saved while so many thousands, even millions of others were left destitute begs the question. Can it be said that excessive and risky speculation has been curbed by the governments reaction to the behaviour of these firms? Bail Out plus future regulation of an industry that already imploded itself seems somewhat redundant: the activity destroyed itself, and I doubt anyone is planning to go through that all over again. More likely, they are seeking the next easy money maker.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Timothy17

[eyeball]

Perhaps we should have cameras installed on the heads of the Members of the Board. Another idea brought to you be Eyeball.

No, the stakeholders that are elected to the board by the public at large would negate the need for cameras. It's good to see you at least recognize the thrust of my idea which is to make things as transparent and accountable as possible.

People have a stake in maintaining healthy ecosystems where they live and they cannot rely on the government or the financial shareholders in companies doing business in their regions to adequately protect their stake.

[ToadBrother]

No, the stakeholders that are elected to the board by the public at large would negate the need for cameras. It's good to see you at least recognize the thrust of my idea which is to make things as transparent and accountable as possible.

People have a stake in maintaining healthy ecosystems where they live and they cannot rely on the government or the financial shareholders in companies doing business in their regions to adequately protect their stake.

Anybody is free to buy shares in a company. If you want that much say, invest. Maybe you'll even make money too.

[M.Dancer]

No, the stakeholders that are elected to the board by the public at large

It's a shame you don't know what you are talking about, your comedy routines would be funnier if you did.

Corporations (both private and public) are private property. It is the stakeholders (shareholders) who elect the board. If members of the general public wish to influence the selection, they have the same opportunity as anyone else, by becoming owners and voting at the AGM.

Please keep those moonbat suggestions coming..

[bloodyminded]

Anybody is free to buy shares in a company. If you want that much say, invest. Maybe you'll even make money too.

Only the larger stakeholders have any power, so what you're effectively saying is, "Get rich, and wield your influence."

There's famous video of Wal-Mart stakeholders expressing moral concerns...and literally getting laughed into silence. That's how it works.

[ToadBrother]

Only the larger stakeholders have any power, so what you're effectively saying is, "Get rich, and wield your influence."

There's famous video of Wal-Mart stakeholders expressing moral concerns...and literally getting laughed into silence. That's how it works.

So the solution is to basically turn the Western world into a communist regime. I mean, that's rather what eyeball is suggesting here.

Much better for the government to vigorously enforce regulations.

[bloodyminded]

So the solution is to basically turn the Western world into a communist regime. I mean, that's rather what eyeball is suggesting here.

Much better for the government to vigorously enforce regulations.

As far as I could see, Eyeball was suggesting that people whose personal lives are directly at stake get some voting power. Is that communism?

There are laws governing what I can do on my property...for the sake of my neighbours. Same with every other neighbourhood (except mayeb the horrible ones). It's the same principle.

[segnosaur]

It won't take another man made disaster like the one BP has done to convince me; oil companies need to go. We are FAR behind where we should be in the alternative fuel market. We are far behind because of the choices governments have made to not say " No!" to oil.

...

What will it take? There has already been so much death and destruction at the hands of oil giants. Time to put them to sleep.

You're right.... we need to get away from death-causing oil and stick to other safer forms of energy.

In the mid-1990s, 14 men had been killed on wind turbines or working with wind energy. Since then six more have died, including the first member of the public, a parachutist who literally flew into a turbine in Germany. (http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html)

Ooops.

Ethanol has long been touted as a cleaner-burning alternative to gasoline and it carries the image of an environmentally friendly fuel since it’s derived from plants and plant waste....But the more than 200 U.S. refineries in operation or under constructione also emit thousands of tons of pollutants a year, including nitrogen oxide, a key element of smog... A recent study by a Stanford University professor concluded that 200 more people each year would die from respiratory problems related to ozone, the unseen component of smog, if all vehicles in the United States ran on a mostly ethanol fuel blend by 2020.(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18425869/)

Oops.

The fact is, every form of energy entails risks, for those producing the energy, for the environment, and for the public itself. The trick is to separate situations that truly are unexpected accidents from those situations that really are the product of negligence.

And keep in mind that while the game of "Blame BP" may be a fun one to play, the situation is a bit more complex:

- Many of the people who work at BP are decent, responsible people who had nothing at all to do with the accident. Simply saying "destroy the company" might harm those people

- The responsibility might need to be shared with other companies. After all, BP does contract out work, and its quite possible that it was those other companies that failed to live up to their agreements by producing substandard work.

[ToadBrother]

As far as I could see, Eyeball was suggesting that people whose personal lives are directly at stake get some voting power. Is that communism?

They do. They vote for the government that passes and enforces regulations.

There are laws governing what I can do on my property...for the sake of my neighbours. Same with every other neighbourhood (except mayeb the horrible ones). It's the same principle.

So you advocate your neighbors electing a representative to sit at your kitchen table?

[bloodyminded]

They do. They vote for the government that passes and enforces regulations.

So you advocate your neighbors electing a representative to sit at your kitchen table?

If I was getting filthy rich off the neighbourhood, and despoiling it as I did so, I"m not sure that's unreasonable.

But still, let's not pretend that someone watching over a corporation is akin to someone sitting at my kitchen table.

[Shady]

We can stop using oil when we come up with alternatives to this partial list of products...

artificial limbs

bags (garbage bags, shopping bags)

balloons

bandaids

candles

clothing (polyester, nylon)

combs

computers, calculators

crayons

credit cards

dishwashing liquids

disposable diapers

eye glasses, sunglasses

fertilizers

fishing rods

flooring (linoleum, tiles, carpets)

garden hose

hand lotion, cream, petroleum jelly

helmets (bicycle, hockey, etc.)

heart valves

helmets (bicycle, hockey, etc.)

insect repellent

insecticides

life jackets

milk jugs

paint brushes

panty hose

parachutes

patio furniture

pens

perfume

rope (nylon)

safety glass

shampoo

shower curtains, shower doors

soft contact lenses

soft drink bottles, plastic bottles

tape (clear, masking, etc.)

tapes - cassettes, vcr tapes

telephones

tennis rackets

tents

toys, dolls, model cars

tires (synthetic rubber)

toothbrushes, toothpaste tubes

trash bags

tv cabinets

umbrellas

unbreakable dishes

waterproof jackets, boots, pants

Good luck with that environmentalist wackos!

[ToadBrother]

Good luck with that environmentalist wackos!

BP is poisoning the Gulf of Mexico right now, and you're haranguing environmentalists? You really are a right-wing stooge.

[segnosaur]

Good luck with that environmentalist wackos!

BP is poisoning the Gulf of Mexico right now, and you're haranguing environmentalists? You really are a right-wing stooge.

The problem is that the "environmentalist wackos" are often quite ignorant of the ability of our society to switch away from existing technologies and of the shortfalls of the alternatives. Not to say all of them are that way (I'm sure many have realistic ideals and a fundamental knowledge of science). But I have met a few that are quite off the deep end.

Yeah, there is a major oil spill which is causing all sorts of harm to the gulf. But a knee-jerk "ban oil" attitude is pointless, and quite possibly counterproductive.

[ToadBrother]

Yeah, there is a major oil spill which is causing all sorts of harm to the gulf. But a knee-jerk "ban oil" attitude is pointless, and quite possibly counterproductive.

I'm not proposing to ban oil (somewhere in the next 50 to 100 years it will start becoming to expensive to use it anyways). I'm proposing that oil companies, where found responsible, have no limits on how much they pay, or how long they have to pay. If I was in charge, if the Gulf fisheries were still in bad shape in twenty years, BP would still be paying through the nose.

[Shwa]

The problem is that the "environmentalist wackos" are often quite ignorant of the ability of our society to switch away from existing technologies and of the shortfalls of the alternatives. Not to say all of them are that way (I'm sure many have realistic ideals and a fundamental knowledge of science). But I have met a few that are quite off the deep end.

Yeah, there is a major oil spill which is causing all sorts of harm to the gulf. But a knee-jerk "ban oil" attitude is pointless, and quite possibly counterproductive.

That is a good point. However I often wonder how many of the whackos sacrifice credibility with a hyperbolic attempt to squeeze the message through all of the noise? Sometimes someone will yell fire to and hope to draw attention to the smoke. And when they do say "ban oil" are they giving any sort of timeframes or is it sort of 'voice in the wilderness' kind of message for the future?

[segnosaur]

Yeah, there is a major oil spill which is causing all sorts of harm to the gulf. But a knee-jerk "ban oil" attitude is pointless, and quite possibly counterproductive.

I'm not proposing to ban oil

You might not be, but the opening post seemed to indicate that was their desire.

I'm proposing that oil companies, where found responsible, have no limits on how much they pay, or how long they have to pay. If I was in charge, if the Gulf fisheries were still in bad shape in twenty years, BP would still be paying through the nose.

Well, I guess the whole question is what do you determine as being "responsible"?

Is a company responsible if they follow all the laws/regulations, and accidents still happen? Or if they rely on subcontractors who screw up?

[ToadBrother]

Well, I guess the whole question is what do you determine as being "responsible"?

Is a company responsible if they follow all the laws/regulations, and accidents still happen?

Yes, because oil extraction, particularly deep sea extraction, has quantifiable risks. The profits have to be weighed against the risks. In this case, BP gets to profit greatly from the oil field, but the risk is that if their extraction causes an ecological disaster, well, they pay, because that's the risk. If they do not wish to incur such a risk.

In the case of this disaster, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that this was not simply some act of nature.

Or if they rely on subcontractors who screw up?

In law, so far as I'm aware, pointing at a subcontractor is not a reasonable deflection of liability. If you hired a subcontractor, the onus is still on you to assure the requirements, unless this initial contract explicitly deflects that liability. So far as I'm aware, no such agreement was made between and the US Government.

Edited May 14, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bloodyminded]

Yes, because oil extraction, particularly deep sea extraction, has quantifiable risks. The profits have to be weighed against the risks. In this case, BP gets to profit greatly from the oil field, but the risk is that if their extraction causes an ecological disaster, well, they pay, because that's the risk. If they do not wish to incur such a risk.

In the case of this disaster, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that this was not simply some act of nature.

In law, so far as I'm aware, pointing at a subcontractor is not a reasonable deflection of liability. If you hired a subcontractor, the onus is still on you to assure the requirements, unless this initial contract explicitly deflects that liability. So far as I'm aware, no such agreement was made between and the US Government.

This is exactly so. When companies like Nike and WalMart pleaded that they didn't know the sweatshop abuses were occurring, and that it wasn't themselves per se, but the subcontractors who were misbehaving...well, personally, I think they were quite possibly telling the truth (albeit with a a kind of averting-the-gaze, almost Doublethink). But Nike and WalMart nonetheless share the responsibility, and few would argue otherwise.

[WIP]

we don't apply the death penalty to any other persons, so why would we apply it to corporations?

They do have a death penalty in the U.S., which is skewed to execute low income defendents whether guilty or not, while wealthy murderers never face the death penalty. As in the O.J. and Jon Benet Ramsey cases, the defendent with bags of money can afford a legal team that will turn the local police dept. upside down and put the spotlight on incompetence of the investigators.

In the realm of artificial persons, the U.S. used to have an automatic death penalty years ago if a corporation couldn't prove that it was acting for the public good. The anti-trust rules that broke up monopolies at the turn of the century was about the last time corporate rights were checked. Ever since then, their legal status has been growing. It's worth noting that the original restrictive laws regarding corporations came out of the American Revolution, and the general revulsion towards the East India Company -- which I think was the first multinational corporation. The Americans did not want to let artificial citizens become dominant as they were in the European colonial empires.

[WIP]

Please refrain from using fake terms such as "environmental genocide" in order to increase the dramatic effect of your posts, it doesn't do anything to advance your argument.

Take a look atwhat's going on in the Gulf now, especially the fact that independent analysts believe that the leak estimates are grossly underestimated, and most of the oil hasn't reached the surface yet. Most of the oil is likely caught in large underwater plumes, and no one knows which shorelines they could be headed for! Wherever it goes, the fallout from this disaster is going to be catastrophic for ocean life down there....so environmental genocide is a justifiable description of the mess they have created from their greed, negligence and corruption.

[Wilber]

Whether you are willing to admit it or not we are all junkies addicted to oil. How many junkies want to shoot their suppliers? Only those in denial. If you want tougher standards imposed on those who feed your habit, it is up to you to impose them, don't expect it to happen voluntarily.

In the mean time, go out and buy some Royal Dutch Shell stock. Dividend yield is over six percent. Try and get that with a bond or GIC.

[WIP]

Whether you are willing to admit it or not we are all junkies addicted to oil. How many junkies want to shoot their suppliers? Only those in denial. If you want tougher standards imposed on those who feed your habit, it is up to you to impose them, don't expect it to happen voluntarily.

In the mean time, go out and buy some Royal Dutch Shell stock. Dividend yield is over six percent. Try and get that with a bond or GIC.

It's not being a junkie for oil, it's being unwilling to make even the smallest sacrifices to get off oil. The carbon tax proposed by Stephan Dion could have been revenue-neutral or pretty damn close to it, and by taxing energy sources that pollute the environment, it would have provided an incentive to move quicker to alternative energy sources, and away from coal and oil. And although there is little willingness to make sacrifices for longterm benefit, a lot of the resistance against taxing carbon is because of the oil companies that are paying phony scientists and conservative think tanks to present their propaganda to the public, in an effort to keep tax subsidies going to coal, oil and gas, rather than to alternative energy.

And your junkies shooting their drug dealer analogy doesn't fit because we're not talking about destroying the company's assets, we're talking about revoking their charter. Governments grant these corporate charters and they can be revoked, although it has rarely occurred in the last hundred years. The corporations business can continue on under new management.

[Wilber]

Not only are we junkies for oil, our governments are junkies for the revenue oil provides. To a great degree, we are a petro economy. Governments who would put a tax on carbon would also become addicted to that tax revenue for their program spending. That's what governments do. If that source of revenue dries up, they will have to find it elsewhere.

Revenue neutral to a government does not mean revenue neutral for you.