Oh no, I’m with you. Our government has long since been captured by business interests, to the detriment of almost all of the rest of us.

That’s reacting to a whole lot of things I did not say

Pt 4.

Yes, if you throw democracy in the trash, ignore the rights of the unpopular, and pass any law that appeals to today’s public morality, then you’ll have lots of options.

Great extremist response to a more moderated opening of discussion.

I just don’t want to hear you guys complain after this idealism gets spun to fuck you over by corporate lawyers more skillful than your populist politicians.

You’ve just talked shit to basically everyone in the room, ignored the discussion going on around you and decided you were right in your own head, structured arguments to take down discussions going on to justify your own conclusions, and now you try to pretend to have a semblance of morals?

But fuck me for pointing out the logical inconsistencies in the useless seething groupthink machine, I guess. Apparently I only have rights if the public likes me.

I mean yeah. Fuck you. Fuck you for coming into a discussion, arguing in bad faith while tossing around assumptions made in bad faith and building bad faith arguments off that. In a forum setting, you only have someone’s ear if you actually make sense instead of having arguments so poorly worded I’d believe it if a geriatric wrote it for you.

Also, great to have a clean, easy way to wipe your hands of any actual discussion after you came in and shat all over the place with your existence. Just go ‘yeah, fuck me I guess’ when things don’t seem to be going your way and walk away from a conversation, sure to go over great with anyone you get into an intellectual debate with.

I know you’re probably not going to read this far (luddites, amirite?) but this kinda seems like you’re worshipping corporate law in either the hopes you become one, you already are one, or you just don’t like the idea that white collar crime is starting to become a serious issue that people are understanding needs severe rules and regulations around, and there needs to be severe penalties for. Which in that case, I’m not quite sure why that idea bothers you so much. As they say, ’ if you’ve got nothing to hide, why are you worried?'. Finally, you may just be arguing from a standpoint that is just factually false, trying to justify it like some kind of religion. In which case, I sincerely hope you either learn to know better from educating yourself, experiencing it yourself, or fall out of the population as fast as possible.

Intellectual debate is pretty important, and intentionally arguing and acting in bad faith is just as serious to making sure young voters understand why things are important, as well as laying out the thought process for them to understand. Instead of just giving false promises if you buy into their cult of corprotology, teaching people and encouraging them to learn about issues they feel strongly enough to argue in bad faith or make an effort talking about is so important.

Just throw the discussion out the window to focus narrowly, in your extremely pointed view, on the hypothetical monkey’s paw of the potential affects a hypothetical law might actually impact, with neither side actually identifying or defining what would be the actual dangers or downsides of such a hypothetical law.

I’m not even sure how to start rebuking your points, as any which way is just a different direction that is still buried 17 leagues deep in your ass. Still, on the thinnest of pretenses that you actually want a discussion about what the post talks about, I’ll try to make an attempt.

I’m going to ignore the insane part of your point where you equated layoffs with murder.

I mean, I’m not quite sure where you’re coming from with this take, unless your basic understandings of cause and effect are so broken to not see the relationship between the only part where I can see this comment referencing:

Hypothetical:

A CEO lays off 10,000 employees that helped that company succeed, solely to increase earnings and not because the company is hurting, not only seriously hurting 9,997 people, but causing 3 to commit suicide.

If I’m correct, you’re saying that people killing themselves due to a unexpected layoff is absolutely insane, and you cannot think of any way, shape, or form that being laid off has on that kind of decision? Or are you attempting to say that people who are laid off due to business decisions - which are typically premediated, uncommunicated in advance to avoid the loss of productivity that would be expected if a company were to sabotage it’s employees like that - are entirely morally and ethically absent of any relation to the effects this will have on those laid off?

Now, you might argue in bad faith that it’s not illegal, and thus is perfectly fine. If someone kills themselves due to something like this, they may have had problems before this, or that this wasn’t an impact and probably would have done it anyways, or if it did, it wasn’t that big, and if it was that big, then they deserved it somehow.

I feel this approach is morally, ethically, and as a human being, a completely void subject. At that point, you’re attempting to rid yourself of the responsibility of the effects actions have on others, and sidestep the entire point of the post which addresses the moral quandary of the incredible perveance of white collar crime, and discussing possible ways to tackle this social issue.

Greed, like hate, is subjective. It is therefore, like hate, a terrible prerequisite for the activation of the criminal justice system. The idea that motivations for crimes should change the definition and/or penalty of those crimes has fostered popular corruption of the justice system since its inception. Industrialization has accelerated the adoption of human fears into that justice system, to the point where we can no longer even count the number of infractions under the law.

I’m pretty sure this deflection is what you’re attempting to do with the above statement, while also exploring your own uniquely twisted idea that motivations for crimes are bad, and pretending like most crimes and cases aren’t built around proving intent and because of intent.

In your world nobody would go to jail for attempted murder because if there wasn’t a motivation to murder someone, it can’t really be called an attempt. Tax fraud wouldn’t be considered tax fraud because they can’t connect that there was an active effort to evade taxes, they just made mistakes that their accountants didn’t catch. It’s actively advocating for the erosion of the common sense and most basic part of our justice system (if you can’t prove the intent or motive, then you can’t actually convict someone of a crime, it’d just be witch hunts at that point).

Also, not sure what Industrialization has to do with human fears, or what corruption you’re referring to. Could you give concrete examples of changes in law that occurred during the Industrial revolution (1760 – 1840 in case you forgot) of this corruption you’re talking about? Also, pretty sure you’re talking about the Industrial Revolution as there is no period of time for 'Industrialization" other than the Industrial Revolution, unless you’re referring to a more vague, made up timeframe. In which case, keep it to yourself.

Pt 3.

You go after organizations whose bread and butter is legal entanglement, using legal entanglement as your only weapon. You make the regulatory environment more difficult for startups and SMBs to compete in, and you do nothing but give your (supposed) worst enemies more political tokens with which to negotiate advantageous positions in that environment. Why do you think these corporate elites flush hundreds of millions of dollars sponsoring progressive media outlets?

Again, we’re not writing law here. Nobody has even propositioned any concrete plan, or even an actionable statement to get this riled up about. The ‘legal entanglement’ you’re speaking of is just fretting about the semantics of a law neither you nor anyone else has defined, and how if this hypothetical law is hypothetically written poorly; Which is a strawman you’ve created, deluded yourself into somehow being convinced is the most logical and reasonable stance to take, and the most accurate interpretation of events is both baffling, and really underlines how you’re not here to discuss, just argue in bad faith and say, ‘no this is bad because what if, if, if, ad infinitum.’

We’re talking about criminal law. Can you clearly, objectively, without arbitrary valuation of goods or services, define a legal principle which identifies the point at which a health plan cut becomes a crime?

We discuss a general idea and intentionally leave the actual wording of the hypothetical law unsaid because that is none of our (including you) job to make, and to intentionally assume it’s going to be written poorly or demand details like what you’ve argued above is really, once again, putting a nail in the coffin.

Also, nice hyper-focus to the literals instead of the practical argument being made. Nobody ever defined if we were discussing civil or criminal law, or even what classification it should be. So, would you mind explaining why you thought the example given would be inferred as a criminal offense?

Do you think they’re stupid?

Do you think anyone else but you is this stupid? Seriously, this is some piss poor arguing.

Pt 2.

Adding more subjective emotional consideration to a punitive system which is already weighed down beyond the ability to enact swift justice is the opposite of helpful.

Subjective emotional consideration? You mean the discretionary judgment that all standing justices (supreme court or otherwise) have had since the founding of America, and that continues to this day? I won’t disagree that the justice system is being weighed down, but we’ll save tackling that issue another day.

What’s your point? That people organize themselves to commit crimes?

You mean like a criminal organization? But, and stay with me here, but what if a legal organization seeks to abuse legal loopholes or commit crimes when the calculated profits offset the risks?

That risky behavior is more dangerous when it’s amplified by concentrated capital?

Uh, yes. Risk taking behavior is incredibly more dangerous when power, wealth, or capital is concentrated in fewer hands. If the rail companies chose, they could effectively strangle national defenses, aid and abet foreign actors to cause very serious damage to our national economy (yes, the national economy is a form of national power, and thus defense. I’m not going to argue semantics about how intentionally harming the economy is different than harming military assets).

None of this justifies the phenomenal leap you made to say that an employer is responsible for the lives of their employees. None of this is precedent for the further corruption of the justice system into subjectivity and emotional bias.

Pretty sure I’ve made it clear in the above that this is neither such a drastic leap in logic or risk for lawmakers, the public, or the country to make. We’re literally talking about cracking down on white collar crime, and somehow it’s this sin against all natural goodness. Neither does a precedent need to be made; we’re not writing a law, none of us are lawyers, and this isn’t a court of law, so I’m unsure if this is yet another attempt to shift goalposts to some much higher, loftier standard than the general discourse it was meant to be, or if you’re somehow under the delusion that these arguments are anything more than idle conversation amongst the general public, and that you somehow think you’re in the senate hearing a bill proposition.

Can’t you see that you’re actually making it worse?

In what way? So far you’ve only agued using common logical fallacies by shifting goalposts, virtue signaling, and obfuscating the actual point you’re trying to make.