Can the world be Fixed?

It is incredibly easy to destroy businesses harmful to the common good: withdraw the massive effort The State puts into protecting fictional entities legally.
If a corporation is no longer Liability Limited, but its CEOs directly responsible for the harm they do, they will be very careful indeed on what they do and not do.

It is weird that those claiming that Governments should stay out of the way of business think it's the natural state of things that they aren't personally liable for what their companies do.
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
It should be possible for supposed news sources which deliberately spread misinformation to be similarly held accountable in a court of law, and fined for doing so. A regulatory body, ideally independent of government, could be set up to do that.
Click to expand...
No. No. No. Some regulatory body - that is, other people with their own biases and agenda- should not be able use the coercive force of the state to dictate what is and what is not truth. Just, no.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
It is incredibly easy to destroy businesses harmful to the common good: withdraw the massive effort The State puts into protecting fictional entities legally.
If a corporation is no longer Liability Limited, but its CEOs directly responsible for the harm they do, they will be very careful indeed on what they do and not do.

It is weird that those claiming that Governments should stay out of the way of business think it's the natural state of things that they aren't personally liable for what their companies do.
Click to expand...
Companies, regardless of how they are form, can already be held liable. Large companies are self-insurance for a certain amount and then buy insurance on top of that. If a company lacks adequate capitalization, i.e., few assets and no insurance, you can "pierce the corporate veil" and go after the owners directly.
 
Steve said:
This is not news. In the USA everything has always been "for profit". It has taken until Trump to make it obvious that that includes the presidency.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see the problem.

You, and presumably theprestige, are among those Americans who forget that there are a couple of hundred other countries on this planet.
 
Trausti said:
No. No. No. Some regulatory body - that is, other people with their own biases and agenda- should not be able use the coercive force of the state to dictate what is and what is not truth. Just, no.
Click to expand...

As I said it would be a court of law which determined that, in the same way libel and defamation cases are determined, with judge and jury. The body would just be the plaintiff in such cases, in the place of the injured party (which would be the public interest). Anyone could submit complaints about lies and misinformation in any news media to it, its role would be to determine whether there is a case for prosecution and pursue it if there is.
 
Pixel42 said:
As I said it would be a court of law which determined that, in the same way libel and defamation cases are determined, with judge and jury.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, but with the caveat that a government which is dependent on lying to its voters — like the present in the US, or possibly the next in the UK — may starve the court of resources, or intimidate the judges to allow it to pass, or not prosecute it.
 
Trausti said:
Companies, regardless of how they are form, can already be held liable. Large companies are self-insurance for a certain amount and then buy insurance on top of that. If a company lacks adequate capitalization, i.e., few assets and no insurance, you can "pierce the corporate veil" and go after the owners directly.
Click to expand...
you completely missed the point.

but it looks like I hit a nerve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom