The idea that someone can buy their way out of breach of laws and regulations like this is fundamentally unjust.
I'm not saying in any one particular instance of it happening any people are taking explicit kickbacks. But the regulating body and process as a whole has become corrupt by allowing this to happen. Whether it's because they get promoted because they netted a lot of fines, or because they later go work for private industry who scratches their backs, or simply that the government likes the revenue so they allow rich people to buy their way out of trouble and that's mutually beneficial for both parties, it is corruption.
But they/we tend to be dismissed as crazy extremists by polite society.
You're not wrong - "might makes right" is certainly old-fashioned.
Might makes right is not old fashioned at all, the mighty are just better at fooling people.
The prosecutor should just not be allowed to cut such deals. Pursue every case to a conclusion, so that we know what corruption there is.
Regulation also can help mitigate many forms of corruption. A systems analysis is one good (systematic!) way to consider all the factors.
This comment, taken as a whole, is notable in what it does not mention.
For example, it doesn't talk about the many kinds of corruption that regulation mitigates (yes, imperfectly).
"Is government regulation good or bad?" is perhaps an ok introductory question to start off with. However, it is simplistic and overly generalized. So if one does not progress beyond it, one hasn't gotten very far. A practical question is "What kinds and implementations of government regulation serve our goals?"
To one up you - i find it bizare that you think that's the bizare part.
The entire point of a corporation, as a governance structure, in general is to limit liability for its shareholders. That's true for all corporations not just facebook. Its the reason people establish corporations instead of running businesseses informally as an individual.
The only surprising thing is the cost benefit trade-off here seems a bit much. Its not surprising that the facebook corporation tried to do its entire reason for existing.
Except they're not doing it to protect Zuckerberg or Sandberg as shareholders they're doing it to protect them as decision making executives. More to the point if they didn't have liability due to the structure of a corporation they would never have been in "danger" and therefore the pay-off would have been unnecessary.
Mark is both, but his problem wasn't due to his share of the company but rather due to his actions or inaction as an executive.
Law does not protect executives breaking the law. It protects shareholders from executives who break it.
Or at least it was supposed to work this way. It seems when billions are on the table culpability is subject to negotiation.
The outrageous part is that someone accepted that money.
I'm not sure if you've replied to the wrong message, but I'm obviously talking about executive actions and alleged breaches, not shareholder liability.
It doesn't much matter to me what the flavor is, what matters is that this is corruption in action, pure and simple.
I think it's bizarre that is what you find bizarre. You've already accepted paying more to shield the executives, so after that it's just negotiation.
What I find bizarre is that essentially "donating" money to a government regulator can induce the regulator to cover up and turn a blind eye to a person's alleged or suspected breaches in the course of investigations and prosecutions.
In the world of plebs, this is either bribery or blackmail, depending on who blinks first, and conspiracy.
I understand corporations "agreeing" to punishment with regulators like it's some cordial negotiation. It seems perverse but if the alternative is horrendously long expensive court cases that the regulator can't afford and doesn't have a good chance of winning, then sure. It does tell me the legislation and regulatory environment is broken (probably by design), but at least I understand regulators operating as they do in the environment they find themselves in.
But this? "Slip us some cash under the table and Mark's little problem goes away" veers into the fundamentally unethical and unjust to me. I'm sure it's just that my tiny pleb brain is not sophisticated or rich enough to understand.