Should a corporation be held responsible if it does something that has a high risk of causing harm?

[LoZoccolo]

To qualify:

- If the plan succeeds, there is benefit to the consumer.
- There is harm if the plan does not succeed.
- The consumer wants the plan to succeed.
- The benefit of the plan succeeding and the harm of the plan failing extends to people beyond the consumers.

[RandomThoughts]

1. Should a corporation be held responsible for not sending

the beer and travel money that is due?

:shrug:

[Angry Dragon]

2. Corporations want to be thought of as people so

if someone is harmed and the corporation is found guilty then the execs should have to spend some time in jail

[KansDem]

3. They're "people" now...

Should we ask, "Should I be held responsible if I do something that has a high risk of causing harm?

To qualify:

- If the plan succeeds, there is benefit to you.
- There is harm if the plan does not succeed.
- The you want the plan to succeed.
- The benefit of the plan succeeding and the harm of the plan failing extends to others but not you.

Any scenarios?

[PATRICK]

4. My vote was temporarily

blocked by NYS wine ad which I NoScripted out. Thanks Firefox.

[Johonny]

5. seems to general to vote on

If everyone dies if they don't succeed. But some may die if they try... verse we get a nice pink lipstick if they succeed but a millions may die if they try. Too much variance in scenario to vote.

[Zorra]

6. No. We need "tort reform" so that corporations can harm or kill anyone in the name of profit

and not be held liable for it in any way.
;-)