It does permit something individuals don’t have: the internal investigation.
replyThe internal investigation has determined that our CEO had no knowledge of this, and that the bloody pig mask was all the idea of the people who make less money, and also we fired the CEO for unrelated reasons.
>The internal investigation has determined that our CEO had no knowledge of this, and that the bloody pig mask was all the idea of the people who make less money, and also we fired the CEO for unrelated reasons.
replyThat's exactly how the criminal justice system should work? If you can't prove a particular person is responsible, you don't have a case. That's exactly why they prosecuted the company as a whole instead, because easier to prove the company as a whole did something, rather than a specific person.
No one can prove the CEO did anything, but whatever it was it was worth 500x as much as the average employee.
replydeleted
replyYeah, but the trick seems to be to kill thousands rather than one. Then you have the full might of the law out to protect you. Exhibit A is the Sacklers family.
replyAgain, no. If some drug company killed a single person with a weird side effect that they buried, do you think it'll be discovered, much less prosecuted? The Sacklers got prosecuted because the opiod epidemic was huge, not because they passed some magical threshold so it's magically fine.
replyBut you can deny life saving treatments if you are a health insurance company
replyThat's their job? It's not even limited to private insurance companies. Public health systems have lists of what is considered good value for money too, even if the treatments themselves are theoretically life saving. The US is the biggest market for new and rare drugs specifically because other countries consider the prices too high.
reply>That's their job?
replyI mean you're the one who brought up hitmen. What's their job?
If you think that denying a specific treatment (justified or otherwise) is comparable murder for hire, then I don't think there's anything worth discussing between the two of us.
replyYeah, in my opinion an unjustified and profit motivated refusal to save a life is the same as intentionally taking that life. It's just the trolley problem and you're arguing that there is some innate nobility in refusing to touch the switch.
reply100% agree. this greed and shareholder supremacy can be traced back the the precedent set in the case of dodge brothers vs ford motor company
replyThey are protected from individual liability in a limited fashion. Not blanket
replyThe person doing the hiring would be criminally liable and probably go to prison. The corporation itself would at best pay a fine.
reply