Profit margin? What a weird point of view.

They should just follow the rules, period. And any fine should be larger than the amount of money they saved by their illegal behavior and cover the corrective actions.

Here's a thought experiment. They're tunneling beneath your house and, because they skip all normal precautions, your house collapses. Sure, you don't mind as long as they're fined a decent amount, right?

>What a weird point of view.

It's not weird. It would be bad if the government was unable to have the funds to clean up the damage. And when someone is charging you with >300% profit margins, that's a sign that you should find another way to solve the issue.

>Sure, you don't mind as long as they're fined a decent amount, right?

I would mind, but I would feel that I was made whole if they paid me >3x the damages to the house.

Treating environmental law as a way to make money is, odd. If the financial Harm is minimal that implies that in your worldview it shouldn't be punished?

You must view jails and prisons as a terrible outcome, since you're essentially paying money to punish someone.

>If the financial Harm is minimal that implies that in your worldview it shouldn't be punished?

Yes. If I step on a patch of grass technically that may damage the grass, but I don't think such an action should be punished since the amount of damage is very small.

>You must view jails and prisons as a terrible outcome, since you're essentially paying money to punish someone.

No, I view it as a positive outcome as it removes malicous actors from the system.

Let's take this bizarre worldview to its logical conclusion, is the amount of damage that a school shooter causes equivalent to the sum of funeral costs and school repair costs?

Should they also get to walk away if they just pay 3 times the cost of "cleaning up the mess"? That's a pretty big profit margin, no?

Yes, they should be able to walk away from the damages of destruction of property and funerals. They would not be able to walkway from the murder charges.

In this scenario disposing of the waste = dealing with the bodies and property damage and digging a tunnel = shooting people within a school. I don't the scenario is a good analog since it was legal to dig the tunnel.

They dumped toxic waste that causes chemical burns into the system which runs to the natural waterways.

> Our largest treatment facility, the Flamingo Water Resource Center, ensures wastewater is treated to the highest standard allowing the reclaimed water to be discharged back into Lake Mead. Lake Mead is the drinking water source for more than 95% of the population and businesses in Clark County.

https://www.cleanwaterteam.com/about-us/who-we-are

They keep walking away from attempted murder charges by just paying a fine.

I would assume treating to the highest standard would mean they remove things such as chemicals that cause chemical burns from the water which would mean it doesn't reach the natural waterways.

Why do you assume that society would subsidize your chemical waste processing? Why do you feel entitled to break laws without consequence?

The system is clearly designed to transport and treat typical sewer water and not arbitrary toxic, corrosive, volatile, or otherwise undesirable chemicals from commercial operations, for pretty obvious reasons.

>society would subsidize

If doing something makes a profit, you don't need to subsidize it.

>Why do you feel entitled to break laws without consequence?

I have never stated that. I am actually for the opposite that with AI we should scale law enforcement to almost always be able to catch people violating laws. My initial comment in this thread is providing a contrasting view point about how the fine is a fair punishment when viewed in relation to how much damage is being caused. I wanted to provide contrast on how the fine's amount could make sense.