(July 28, 2011 at 4:08 am)theVOID Wrote: Oh what, do you want to throw any business executives in prison as soon as someone accuses them of polluting to the extent that kills people?Normally when someone is accused of murder, they aren't immediately thrown in prison. I fail to see why anything should be different.
(July 28, 2011 at 4:08 am)theVOID Wrote: Individuals who are the victims of the actions of any other individual or organisation should be free to pursue damages in court but they have to make their case as the accuser, beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when the sentences proposed are for significant prison sentences.
Either you have no idea about jurisdiction shopping in the US and/or know nothing about lawyers, especially the high profile ones. If you think trying to stop the RIAA/MPAA from extorting money from people by their frivolous and often ridiculously high damage claim lawsuits is hard, what the hell do you think can occur in Citizen VRS Entity accused of Murder (as opposed to Entity trying to get 50k$ from you whether you can afford it or not).
(July 28, 2011 at 4:08 am)theVOID Wrote: - Regulatory bodies often do not permit this kind of class action, they usurp the functions that would otherwise be used by the public to pursue compensation and by all accounts they let way too much slide.Look at the Koch brothers and their industrial practices. Seems illegal, right? Well then Mr. Consumers Always Know What's Best, why don't we see hideous lawsuits practically wiping them from the face of the Earth?
Why didn't BP practically get hamstrung for poisoning the gulf and ruining a great many people's bank accounts and livelihoods?
Why does Exxon still exist, given their massive oil spills?
It's not just "regulatory bodies". It's the people. If they truly felt the way you've outlined, then the laws would be different. There would be a push to change and punish them. But there isn't, wasn't and probably won't be.
And that's why we have "regulatory bodies" -- an entity that originally was used by political movements (usually composed of a very vocal minority) as a hammer.
Most other people don't fucking care ™.
(July 28, 2011 at 4:08 am)theVOID Wrote: Take for instance the situation of someone who is an enormous polluter like the Koch brothers who you despise so much. Given that AGW is largely considered to be scientific fact
Whoah there pardner! Maybe you haven't paid attention to US legislation, but AGW is considered a political debate. And the people who have a vested interest in it being kept 'unproven' can easily dig up expert witness after expert witness to muddy up the waters enough for escaping beyond a 'reasonable doubt'.
(July 28, 2011 at 4:08 am)theVOID Wrote: and given that the Koch brothers are excessively polluting and emitting greenhouse gasses which in turn causes damage to peoples and property
Also debatable. And also extremely unlikely to ever pass in any court, given who they could hire, who they can present and whatever hush money they could, in event of everything going wrong, offer.
You'll get no justice there.
(July 28, 2011 at 4:08 am)theVOID Wrote: , it should be easy to demonstrate a connection between the Koch Brothers activities and damages to life and property
Quoted for not making sense. Since when was it "easy" to demonstrate any but the most bloodfucking obvious malfeasance (Oil spills, I'm looking at yoooooou)?
(July 28, 2011 at 4:08 am)theVOID Wrote: - What actions have your regulatory bodies realistically taken to prevent their ongoing pollution, huh? Not much.
Because the current political powers that be have been loosening the regulatory guidelines for years.
Sorry Void, but your version of history deviates significantly with what happens over here.
Here's an example of financial regulations (Glass-Steagall Act) that were weakened and partially repealed by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (authored by three famous Republicans). Because of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, many actions including the chopped derivatives games played by the financial giants were considered legal because of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.
In other words, a regulation agency is only as strong as it is legislated.
And who buys off legislators? Corporations and other big moneyed interests. Occasionally PACs as well.
And yet who fucking elects the legislators? In theory, the little guy.
(July 28, 2011 at 4:08 am)theVOID Wrote: And can the Koch brothers be sued by thousands of complainants when the regulators won't do shit and if found guilty be heavily penalised? No, because as long as Koch is within the regulatory guidelines and the public can't sue for damages they can legitimately claim to be following regulations, meaning they have done nothing illegal and can't be sued!
Yep.
