Comments on: Full Disclosure

By: steve

steve — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:57:49 +0000

Your second sentence in the previous comment is the cause of confusion.

It’s unclear why the corporation is to be held accountable for something a person did. Please explain.

By: darwin

darwin — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:12:22 +0000

I said the law should ‘protect individuals’, not ‘pardon criminals’. I guess you get confused sometimes.

To answer your question pecifically, the exec should face criminal prosecution by the state, and the corporation should be vulnerable to being sued by those hurt by the product.

By: steve

steve — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:52:49 +0000

So if an exec intentionally takes shortcuts in producing a product that he knows will lead to some consumer fatalities he should not be held accountable but the corporation should be?

By: darwin

darwin — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:07:02 +0000

The law should protect individuals, not corporations. If a corporation does something lethally stupid, it should go out of business; if that’s not your position, then you’re not serious about free markets serving consumers through competition.

By: steve

steve — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:12:59 +0000

If i were to agree with your characterization, that corporations should be treated like people than you would also be saying about my position that its okay for people to exploit other people for greed. That all comes down to how you define greed.

In response to your 2nd paragraph i wrote this in the post:

I believe that this couple is in its full rights to keep the money.

Its you that has the awkward problem of explaining why one group of people (those that make a living from the bank) should get differential treatment over another group of people (those that do business with the bank).

By: darwin

darwin — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:55:09 +0000

Thank you for exposing the flaw in your way of thinking- it’s all predicated on the idea of treating corporations as people. Thus, regulations are trampling a person’s rights, corporate greed and exploitation is just normal, every-day self interest, and etc.

Remember, your argument is that free markets help consumers, so you should be fine with unwary corporations getting screwed- that’s the invisible hand of the market telling them to be more careful. Once you start favoring any forms of protetionism for the corporations at the expense of the consumer, it’s clear where your values actually lie.