What's your agreement threshold for collective action?
"there's a reason why the North, after winning the civil war, has largely chose not to collectively punish the South..."
And how'd that work out?
I'm befuddled by the false choice of "do nothing" and "make them pay".
What about Truth and Reconciliation? Conduct an honest accounting of what happened, what we've learned, and how we're going to fix it.
Think of it as a post mortem. Hopefully not literally.
Often brought to us by the same people (present company not necessarily included) who previously insisted that "the science isn't settled".
post-hoc punishment is the only reasonable punishment. The alternative it to punish people before they commit a crime, and that seems immoral at best.
> push a policy
My guess, it was already illegal to poison the environment. They just got caught now.
> those responsible with something like reconciliation committees ... symbolic gestures are accepted in lieu of prison or capital punishment.
Corporations are not people. You can punish a corporation without any of that considerations.
Maybe a little charitable interpretation is warranted?
I clearly meant, post hoc rationalization for the punishment. Typically you punish when AN EXISTING law is broken. In this case, OP is arguing for new punishment based on new laws that were broken in the past.
>My guess, it was already illegal to poison the environment
No. The devil is in the definition of 'poison the environment'. We have coal plants that 'poison the environment'. We have solar panels, that through manufacturing, maintenance and decommissioning, 'poison the environment'.
>Corporations are not people. You can punish a corporation without any of that considerations.
Who owns corporations? This "corporations are not people" is such a cliché. All the rights that corporations have stem from the rights of the owners. Corporations have rights, because the owners have rights.
And who says the corporations are solely responsible? An unincorporated contractor may be responsible as well.
This is simply not true. All of the rights that corporations have stem from a public-interest grant by the state. If the rights of corporations came from the owners, we 1) could jail stockholders for the crimes of the corporation, and 2) wouldn't need corporations, because all they are is liability shields.
Corporations aren't actual people, they're statutory people. Little branches of the government.
Go on...
"Corporations aren't actual people, they're statutory people. Little branches of the government."
Oh.
I'd be ecstatic if we resumed chartering of corporations. If corporations are "people", we should be able to "unpeople" (terminate) them.
I've long hoped that progressives and libertarians could find common ground over the need to reign in corporations.
I've always found it weird that "freedom from oppression" minded people prefer Big Corp over Big Govt. As you point out, corporations are just more government, but without all that troublesome accountability, transparency, and democratic oversight.
That is exactly true.
>All of the rights that corporations have stem from a public-interest grant by the state.
That's right. But that's missing half the equation. If property rights weren't enshrined to corporations, and corporations could be arbitrarily raided by any two-bit socialist politician, nobody would incorporate. And those property rights come from the property rights of the owners because if the owners own the corporations, and if the corporations property rights are violated, then it follows the owners property rights are violated. If I own a corporation, that owns a local business (maybe a grocery store, or a autobody shop), and a looter steals from the store, I, the owner lose. Remember those videos of store owners in tears when looters and rioters destroyed their stores - some (all?) of those business owners are incorporated, so why are they in tears if it's just corporate property that was affected??????
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC#Argumen...
"During the original oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart (representing the FEC) argued that under Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or labor union. In response to this line of questioning, Stewart further argued that under Austin the government could ban the digital distribution of political books over the Amazon Kindle or prevent a union from hiring an author to write a political book."
Isn't a "attempted X" quite common crime? I.e. attempted murder. I would say it is quite common and moral to punnish people before they commit the crime.
I don’t see why it needs to be arbitrary, and all punishment occurs post hoc.
It's arbitrary because we're creating a new standard and judging (and punishing) those who did not follow it in the past. And OP is clearly arbitrary in their reasoning. They suggested collective punishment and didn't bother thinking through the implications of how that policy would be implemented and what unintended consequences it would have.
>and all punishment occurs post hoc.
Post hoc rationalization for punishment. The actions taken were legal at the time, and OP argued that that shouldn't stand in the way of punishing those individuals (or their descendants) today.
To circle back on collective punishment - there's a reason why the North, after winning the civil war, has largely chose not to collectively punish the South - in much the same way that other regions which suffered through terrible civil wars where terrible crimes were committed, frequently choose to replace punishment of many of those responsible with something like reconciliation committees, where symbolic gestures are accepted in lieu of prison or capital punishment.