Hacker News Reader

Comment by colechristensen | Hacker News Reader

Something that needs to happen more often is corporate abusers need to be fined into bankruptcy, shareholders wiped out, ownership transferred to the people (state) and kept operating while sold or broken up into pieces during bankruptcy restructuring. i.e. real consequences for boards and shareholders that aren't just small dents in quarterly profits while minimizing consequences for the more ordinary workers

View on HN

That this doesn't happen is all the more proof we live in a plutocracy with a veneer of democracy.

Companies have been destroyed by courts, but very few, very infrequently.

What?

How on earth would the government seizing control of one of the largest industries in the country make us more of a democracy?

We would then be in company with countries such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, famously democratic countries

what about norway

And actual liability for directors. None of this “oh, just take all my shareholder’s money for my mistakes in exchange for jail time”

Should the death penalty be on the table for executives in particularly egregious acts of pollution? Environmental destruction irreparably harms public commons, including the lives of millions of future humans.

These people are making millions and it doesn't seem like current enforcement has the desired deterrent effect. Slaps on the wrist with small fines don't seem effective. How often do executives get prison time for serious pollution?

Is there a fair legal test that you believe would justify the death penalty for egregious acts of pollution where an executive knowingly participated in the cover up? Currently it feels like the commons is being exploited without consequence. I can't help but think that executing just a couple of the worst offenders would make violators much more cautious and curtail this destructive behavior.

>Should the death penalty be on the table for executives in particularly egregious acts of pollution

because that worked so well to deter murderers?

>These people are making millions and it doesn't seem like current enforcement has the desired deterrent effect. Slaps on the wrist with small fines don't seem effective.

I don't understand why the logical progression from "small fines" is "death penalty".

Polluters can make hundreds or thousands of people get sick or die due to cancers, respiratory illnesses, etc as well as making species go extinct. That seems worse to me than even the worst mass shooters, but there doesn't seem to be proportional prosecution of these crimes.

I think as long as we have a death penalty than, yes, it should be on the table. Some of the comments on your question offer compelling reason for that to be the case.

That sounds like Utopia compared to what we have.

What you're describing is practically impossible in a capitalist state, both due to political unwillingness and by juridical obstructions. One has to realize that the main function of a capitalist state is to secure private capital and facilitate profits for the capitalist class, in short - to preserve the class hierarchy.

Seems anything being remotely anti-capitalist gets downvoted here.

no, just comments that draw conclusions based off conjecture.

One thing's for sure, the US & Canada were founded by multinational corporations for the benefit of multinational corporations.

IIRC not public corporations but with royals and noblemen for partners.

After so much time people are bound to draw different conclusions sometimes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com