Death sentences are often handed out in the US to people who kill others.
Wouldn't corporations that kill people just to increase their profit margain
deserve the death sentence more then humans do? Afterall a corporation isn't
conscious is it?

I'm not talking about sending them bankrupt after the accidents that will
sometimes happen. I'm talking sending them bankrupt if they knowingly
comprimise safety just to increase their profit margain. Ford did that once,
not enough punishment I might add but it did stop others doing the same.

If we don't have a good way to punish companies that knowingly sell an unsafe
product when there is no need then we're going to have a lot of people dying.
Sure it'll drive the cost up a bit but not as much as the businesses say it
will. Actually it'll probably end up saving money.

The reason that we need to have exemplary damages is to make sure that
something like the Pinto Shape doesn't get made. Interesting how increased
safety hasn't made cars any less affordable. I mean it doesn't cost much to
make sure the fuel tank doesn't explode does it?

Sometimes the so called "wild out of balanced punishment" is the only one that
works. Particulary when you want to deter others from doing something.

--- Ravenart@... wrote:

In a message dated 2/14/02 9:04:22 AM, bestonnet_00@... writes:

<< Death sentences are often handed out in the US to people who kill others.
Wouldn't corporations that kill people just to increase their profit margain
deserve the death sentence more then humans do? Afterall a corporation isn't
conscious is it? >>

There's a one major flaw in your statment. Why would a corporation want to
kill their own customers? It cost money and overhead to create new
customers. It's far far cheaper to keep your customers and make them repeat
customers. According to the Law of Inbalance, 20% of customers who are
repeat customers provide 80% of cashflow and the overhead is low because they
are already aware of your prducts and brand and need no introduction. To
kill their customers would NOT increase their profit margin, but make it far
more expensive because such actions would increase the overhead of sale
effort, setting up paperwork, etc etc.

Frankly I don't think from your words that you really understand the nature
of corporations or business and I'm not sure you really want to. You just
wnat to go into space and that's good, but wishing won't make it happened.
You gotta do the work, dude!

Carl

If I take a gun, point it at someone's head, and pull the trigger
deliberately, that's called "killing".

If a corporation makes millions of vehicles, and >99% of the people who
use these vehicles never die in accidents, but a few thousand do, does
that constitute "killing"? Careful with your semantics. A lot of
fashionable people like to say that cigarette companies "kill" people. I
don't subscribe to that idea one iota.

I auto company A spent $x million on safety instead of $2x million on
safety, and the differential in numbers of accidental deaths due to that
differential in safety investment equated to 200 people --- not that
anyone can really do such calculations --- does that constitute the
company "killing" 200 extra people? Even if >99% of the people using the
vehicles never die?

I despise double-speak.

Ron
*****

Ryan Healey
02/14/02 09:02 AM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Safety and Legal Issues

Death sentences are often handed out in the US to people who kill others.
Wouldn't corporations that kill people just to increase their profit
margain
deserve the death sentence more then humans do? Afterall a corporation
isn't
conscious is it?

I'm not talking about sending them bankrupt after the accidents that will
sometimes happen. I'm talking sending them bankrupt if they knowingly
comprimise safety just to increase their profit margain. Ford did that
once,
not enough punishment I might add but it did stop others doing the same.

If we don't have a good way to punish companies that knowingly sell an
unsafe
product when there is no need then we're going to have a lot of people
dying.
Sure it'll drive the cost up a bit but not as much as the businesses say
it
will. Actually it'll probably end up saving money.

The reason that we need to have exemplary damages is to make sure that
something like the Pinto Shape doesn't get made. Interesting how
increased
safety hasn't made cars any less affordable. I mean it doesn't cost much
to
make sure the fuel tank doesn't explode does it?

Sometimes the so called "wild out of balanced punishment" is the only one
that
works. Particulary when you want to deter others from doing something.

--- Ravenart@... wrote:
>
> Yes, That's what the law should be for, but not for the wild, out of
balanced

--- rmenich@... wrote:
> If I take a gun, point it at someone's head, and pull the trigger
> deliberately, that's called "killing".

It is.

> If a corporation makes millions of vehicles, and >99% of the people who
> use these vehicles never die in accidents, but a few thousand do, does
> that constitute "killing"? Careful with your semantics. A lot of
> fashionable people like to say that cigarette companies "kill" people. I
> don't subscribe to that idea one iota.

If the company knows that there is something wrong with the vehicle that will
kill people and also knows how to fix it and can do so at a reasonable cost
then not doing so is killing as far as I'm concerned. As for cigarette
companies they sell a product that is known to be kill people and they also
actively attempt to get more people to use them. That sure sounds like killing
to me, particulary since they could be lowering the amount of nicotine instead
of adding more. They are making a conscious decision to let x number of people
die so that they can make a profit. Sounds like killing to me. Besides with
cars most of the people who use them don't get killed by them yet with cancer
sticks many of the people who use them end up getting a very bad diesese that
cuts short their life span by many years.

> I auto company A spent $x million on safety instead of $2x million on
> safety, and the differential in numbers of accidental deaths due to that
> differential in safety investment equated to 200 people --- not that
> anyone can really do such calculations --- does that constitute the
> company "killing" 200 extra people? Even if >99% of the people using the
> vehicles never die?

Probably not as they had no knowledge of any substantial safety defects.

--- Ravenart@... wrote:
> There's a one major flaw in your statment. Why would a corporation want to
> kill their own customers? It cost money and overhead to create new
> customers. It's far far cheaper to keep your customers and make them repeat
> customers. According to the Law of Inbalance, 20% of customers who are
> repeat customers provide 80% of cashflow and the overhead is low because they
> are already aware of your prducts and brand and need no introduction. To
> kill their customers would NOT increase their profit margin, but make it far
> more expensive because such actions would increase the overhead of sale
> effort, setting up paperwork, etc etc.

It didn't seem to matter to GM and Ford back when they built death traps.

Besides sometimes the money that a company thinks it can save by not including
some very cheap safety measures is more then what the company thinks the value
of the repeat business of those who were killed would be.

> Frankly I don't think from your words that you really understand the nature
> of corporations or business and I'm not sure you really want to. You just
> wnat to go into space and that's good, but wishing won't make it happened.
> You gotta do the work, dude!

It seems that you're the one who doesn't understand corporations. One thing
that has to be understood about corpations is that they often work by what
seems to be the case instead of what is. Ford calculated that it would cost
them $11 per car to fix the fuel tank problem with the Pinto shape, when they
got around to doing it they only ended up spending $1 per car. Often
corporations will think it's cheaper to let their customers die then to allow
them to live and become repeat customers. Even though it's often better for
the corporation to let the customer live. There is also this strange short
term over long term bias inherient in capitalism which can often casue
problems.

As for wishing won't make it happen, no it won't, but removing liability for
deaths for profit won't either.

If I point a gun at somebody's head and pull the trigger, then they have
no choice in the matter: I have killed them.

If I ask someone to smoke a cigarette for 30 years, then they do have a
choice to say "no". Even after they have started smoking, they have a
choice to stop. Many, many people have stopped smoking, my father
included.

I have no more time for this discussion today. See ya.

Ron
******

Ryan Healey
02/14/02 09:40 AM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Safety and Legal Issues

--- rmenich@... wrote:
> If I take a gun, point it at someone's head, and pull the trigger
> deliberately, that's called "killing".

It is.

> If a corporation makes millions of vehicles, and >99% of the people who
> use these vehicles never die in accidents, but a few thousand do, does
> that constitute "killing"? Careful with your semantics. A lot of
> fashionable people like to say that cigarette companies "kill" people. I

> don't subscribe to that idea one iota.

If the company knows that there is something wrong with the vehicle that
will
kill people and also knows how to fix it and can do so at a reasonable
cost
then not doing so is killing as far as I'm concerned. As for cigarette
companies they sell a product that is known to be kill people and they
also
actively attempt to get more people to use them. That sure sounds like
killing
to me, particulary since they could be lowering the amount of nicotine
instead
of adding more. They are making a conscious decision to let x number of
people
die so that they can make a profit. Sounds like killing to me. Besides
with
cars most of the people who use them don't get killed by them yet with
cancer
sticks many of the people who use them end up getting a very bad diesese
that
cuts short their life span by many years.

> I auto company A spent $x million on safety instead of $2x million on
> safety, and the differential in numbers of accidental deaths due to that

> differential in safety investment equated to 200 people --- not that
> anyone can really do such calculations --- does that constitute the
> company "killing" 200 extra people? Even if >99% of the people using
the
> vehicles never die?

Probably not as they had no knowledge of any substantial safety defects.

--- rmenich@... wrote:
> If I point a gun at somebody's head and pull the trigger, then they have
> no choice in the matter: I have killed them.

Correct.

> If I ask someone to smoke a cigarette for 30 years, then they do have a
> choice to say "no". Even after they have started smoking, they have a
> choice to stop. Many, many people have stopped smoking, my father
> included.

You underestimate the power of advertising and peer pressure. Intersetingly
enough if someone makes it to 20 and is still a non-smoker then they'll stay a
non-smoker for the rest of their life. Pretty much everyone who starts to
smoke today starts in their teenage years.

Quitting smoking is a good idea but it can be very hard. There are a lot of
people who fail. Now if the nicotine content in cigarettes were to be
gradulary lowered they would start to lose their addictive qualities.

In a message dated 2/14/02 10:02:00 AM, bestonnet_00@... writes:

<< You underestimate the power of advertising and peer pressure.
Intersetingly
enough if someone makes it to 20 and is still a non-smoker then they'll stay a
non-smoker for the rest of their life. Pretty much everyone who starts to
smoke today starts in their teenage years. >>

Have you read "The Tipping Point"? It appeared that only 20% of teens who
start smoking are hard smokers. The 80% are recreational smokers who can
smoke a crig once in a while but never need to pick it up for months on time.
It appeared from studies that the people who smoking cause cancer are the
heavy smokers who smoke a lot because they have genetic higher tolration for
nictorin and need to smoke more in order to get the buzz. The rest are not
addicted by any standard. The same is true in any case of drugs.

Carl

No I haven't read it, in fact I haven't even heard it.

As for those figures I've heard other figures that are very different from
those from other sources. Some sources indicate that once you pick up your
first cancer stick and smoke it you'll probably end up an addict for a long
time.

"On the other hand, most teenagers who initiate regular use of tobacco products
will become addicted, and their habit will remain active for years." - American
Medical Students Associsation http://www.amsa.org/programs/gpit/tobacco.cfm
scroll down to The Nature of Tobacco Addiction for the complete information.

Nicotine is one of the most addicative substances around, if it were discovered
recently it would have been banned.

--- Ravenart@... wrote:
>
> Have you read "The Tipping Point"? It appeared that only 20% of teens who
> start smoking are hard smokers. The 80% are recreational smokers who can
> smoke a crig once in a while but never need to pick it up for months on time.
>
> It appeared from studies that the people who smoking cause cancer are the
> heavy smokers who smoke a lot because they have genetic higher tolration for
> nictorin and need to smoke more in order to get the buzz. The rest are not
> addicted by any standard. The same is true in any case of drugs.

It is those who smoke a lot that are the most likely to get cancer from the
cancer sticks but there is still evidence linking passive smoking to cancer.
Although the problem of passive smoking is going down with more people deciding
not to smoke in public places and also with non-smoking zones and in some
places (like where I am) a complete ban on smoking in resturants.

In a message dated 2/14/02 10:36:01 AM, bestonnet_00@... writes:

<< As for those figures I've heard other figures that are very different from
those from other sources. Some sources indicate that once you pick up your
first cancer stick and smoke it you'll probably end up an addict for a long
time. >>

One thing I learned about science is that it's ain't science if you didn't
check out the sources and double test the results in numbers yourself. Many
of the opinions given in studies are just that opinions which can be wrong
because of our human nature in that wemake mistakes willing or unwilling. I
rather trust enginners because they pay more attention to actual numbers than
to politics.

carl

--- In spacesettlers@y..., rmenich@m... wrote:

> company "killing" 200 extra people? Even if >99% of the people
using the
> vehicles never die?
>

Um, guess what...EVERYBODY eventually dies. If there was a product
that would ensure that>99% of the people using it would _never_ die,
then such a product would have an immedieate market of around six
billion, no?

This sort of argument really pisses me off, particularly when used
by the anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-nanotech, anti-anything-not-
approved-of-by-the-author busybodies (whom are apparently in firm
control of just about every governmental institution in Canada, and
probably the USA too).

Jeez Louise, people, nothing is 100% safe... and yet, western
society has allowed slick lawyers (who btw do not PRODUCE anything
of REAL value) to grow fat and wealthy from spurious lawsuits.

You pay your money, you takes your chances, right? And if you don't
do your homework, then whose fault is it?

I have been a cigarette smoker for about 14 years, and it will
probably give me lung cancer or emphysema (sp?) or some other nasty
ailment, which will be the end of me. But, it is MY CHOICE to fill
my lungs with poison, nobody is FORCING me to smoke. Nobody is
forcing those fools who end their lives attempting Everest, either
(something like six fatalities per year, on average). And nobody is
forcing people to put their hard-earned money into the Russian space
program, $20M to visit the ISS for a week at a time.

caveat emptor

:) ed

--- spider_boris wrote:
>
> Um, guess what...EVERYBODY eventually dies. If there was a product
> that would ensure that>99% of the people using it would _never_ die,
> then such a product would have an immedieate market of around six
> billion, no?

Yes, but we should try to delay the death.

Also nano-technology looks promising when it comes to curing death (mostly).

> This sort of argument really pisses me off, particularly when used
> by the anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-nanotech, anti-anything-not-
> approved-of-by-the-author busybodies (whom are apparently in firm
> control of just about every governmental institution in Canada, and
> probably the USA too).

Anti-smoking and anti-drinking arguments tend to be very good. Anti-nano-tech
arguments not so good as the points bought up against nano-tech can be
rectified.

> Jeez Louise, people, nothing is 100% safe... and yet, western
> society has allowed slick lawyers (who btw do not PRODUCE anything
> of REAL value) to grow fat and wealthy from spurious lawsuits.

No, but that doesn't mean it should be allowed to kill people because proper
safety tests weren't done or were done but defects not corrected. Lawyers
sometimes do serve a useful purpose.

> You pay your money, you takes your chances, right? And if you don't
> do your homework, then whose fault is it?

We already tried that. It didn't work.

As for not doing your homework how could you do enough for all the purchases
you make? Afterall it's not just buying a ticket on a spacecraft and getting a
car, you also have to buy food, a house and a lot of other things. With all
those the amount of homework that would need to be done to find out if any will
kill you would be far too much.

Now would you like to have to buy a whole heap of food then run it through a
very large series of tests to make sure it's safe to eat? Would you like to
have to it everyday?

If the answer is no then you'll want there to be consumer protection.

> I have been a cigarette smoker for about 14 years, and it will
> probably give me lung cancer or emphysema (sp?) or some other nasty
> ailment, which will be the end of me. But, it is MY CHOICE to fill
> my lungs with poison, nobody is FORCING me to smoke. Nobody is
> forcing those fools who end their lives attempting Everest, either
> (something like six fatalities per year, on average). And nobody is
> forcing people to put their hard-earned money into the Russian space
> program, $20M to visit the ISS for a week at a time.

No one is forcing you to smoke but if you're in a public place then your smoke
is affecting them. As such you're forcing other people to be smokers everytime
you light up in a room that has other people in it. Passive smoking despite
what the cigarette company front groups may claim does kill people and is a
serious problem.

> caveat emptor

Was abandoned because it didn't work.

--- In spacesettlers@y..., Ryan Healey wrote:
> --- spider_boris wrote:
> >
> > Um, guess what...EVERYBODY eventually dies. If there was a
product
> > that would ensure that>99% of the people using it would _never_
die,
> > then such a product would have an immedieate market of around
six
> > billion, no?
>
> Yes, but we should try to delay the death.
>
> Also nano-technology looks promising when it comes to curing death
(mostly).

I agree with you on this point, but try to convince Bill Joy...

>
> > You pay your money, you takes your chances, right? And if you
don't
> > do your homework, then whose fault is it?
>
> We already tried that. It didn't work.
>
> As for not doing your homework how could you do enough for all the
purchases
> you make? Afterall it's not just buying a ticket on a spacecraft
and getting a
> car, you also have to buy food, a house and a lot of other
things. With all
> those the amount of homework that would need to be done to find
out if any will
> kill you would be far too much.

Does anybody buy a car without taking it to their mechanic? You
don't have to do the homework on every car you buy, but you should
do your homework on your mechanic, and be careful to select a
competent one.

As for buying food: do your homework by reading the labels. If you
don't trust GM foods, then don't buy anything labelled "Monsanto".

When you buy a house, you do have it inspected by a professional or
series of professionals before signing on the dotted line, don't
you? (it is amazing how much the price of a house will drop if you
invest a few bucks by hiring a plumber and an electrician as
consultants)

> > I have been a cigarette smoker for about 14 years, and it will
> > probably give me lung cancer or emphysema (sp?) or some other
nasty
> > ailment, which will be the end of me. But, it is MY CHOICE to
fill
> > my lungs with poison, nobody is FORCING me to smoke. Nobody is
> > forcing those fools who end their lives attempting Everest,
either
> > (something like six fatalities per year, on average). And
nobody is
> > forcing people to put their hard-earned money into the Russian
space
> > program, $20M to visit the ISS for a week at a time.
>
> No one is forcing you to smoke but if you're in a public place
then your smoke
> is affecting them. As such you're forcing other people to be
smokers everytime
> you light up in a room that has other people in it. Passive
smoking despite
> what the cigarette company front groups may claim does kill people
and is a
> serious problem.

Exactly. The right to swing my fist ends at your nose. (RA
Heinlein)

:) ed

--- spider_boris wrote:
> > Yes, but we should try to delay the death.
> >
> > Also nano-technology looks promising when it comes to curing death
> (mostly).
>
> I agree with you on this point, but try to convince Bill Joy...

Good luck.

> Does anybody buy a car without taking it to their mechanic? You
> don't have to do the homework on every car you buy, but you should
> do your homework on your mechanic, and be careful to select a
> competent one.

Most people who buy new cars don't have a mechanic look at it. Of course with
used cars you always should have it looked at by someone who doesn't have a
financial interest in selling it.

> As for buying food: do your homework by reading the labels. If you
> don't trust GM foods, then don't buy anything labelled "Monsanto".

Yes, going reserach is a good idea but what if there were no requirement that
food be processed in such a way as to prevent it from having e-coli in it?
Would you want to check every bit of food you bought to make sure it's safe.
As for GM foods I personally don't see the point in requireing them to have
labels becuase if the modifications are done well they'll be just as safe and
probably somewhat safer then so called 'organic' foods.

> When you buy a house, you do have it inspected by a professional or
> series of professionals before signing on the dotted line, don't
> you? (it is amazing how much the price of a house will drop if you
> invest a few bucks by hiring a plumber and an electrician as
> consultants)

Always a good idea to check something like that but there are still cases,
particulary with new houses where you don't get what you pay for.

Consumer protection laws have done a great amount of good, no need to get rid
of them although like everything they could be improved.

--- In spacesettlers@y..., Ryan Healey wrote:
> Consumer protection laws have done a great amount of good, no need
to get rid
> of them although like everything they could be improved.
>

Okay, good, we agree on this point. I guess my main objection is to
the hyper-litigiousness (i do believe i just made up a new word) of
western society, particularly in the USA. Simply put, if I am
selling a product, I should take all _reasonable_ precautions to
ensure that said product is safe under all but extraordinary
conditions... but no more precautions beyond the reasonable should
be required.

Case in point: notice how every coffee cup at McDonald's has the
words "caution:hot" printed on the side? This is due to a single
lawsuit, where a woman claimed she was burned by the coffee. Well,
duh, it's _coffee_, it's supposed to be hot. This one lawsuit cost
Mickey D's literally millions, both to settle the suit and to
reprint all their coffee cups. Why? To protect people without an
ounce of common sense. Had I been the judge in the case (and it's
probably a good thing I was not), not only would I have not awarded
in favour of the plaintiff, I would likely have made her pay McD's
legal costs and furthermore charged her with contempt of court.

Now, if somebody wishes to put their life in danger, whether by
attempting Everest, smoking cigarettes, or strapping a rocket engine
to their ass, I say fine, go hard... but don't expect financial
compensation to be paid to your family when the shit hits the fan
(UNLESS your death can be directly attributable to gross criminal
negligence on the part of the defendant). Don't expect to be paid
to make up for a lack of common sense. (Aside: why is it
called "common" sense, anyhow, if it is apparently so uncommon?)

:) ed

--- spider_boris wrote:
> Okay, good, we agree on this point. I guess my main objection is to
> the hyper-litigiousness (i do believe i just made up a new word) of
> western society, particularly in the USA. Simply put, if I am
> selling a product, I should take all _reasonable_ precautions to
> ensure that said product is safe under all but extraordinary
> conditions... but no more precautions beyond the reasonable should
> be required.

People often sue when what happened to them was their fault. The courts should
be awarding $20 to them when that happens.

> Case in point: notice how every coffee cup at McDonald's has the
> words "caution:hot" printed on the side? This is due to a single
> lawsuit, where a woman claimed she was burned by the coffee. Well,
> duh, it's _coffee_, it's supposed to be hot. This one lawsuit cost
> Mickey D's literally millions, both to settle the suit and to
> reprint all their coffee cups. Why? To protect people without an
> ounce of common sense. Had I been the judge in the case (and it's
> probably a good thing I was not), not only would I have not awarded
> in favour of the plaintiff, I would likely have made her pay McD's
> legal costs and furthermore charged her with contempt of court.

I wouldn't have noticed it because I don't eat there. Also whilst I do agree
it was the plaintiff's fault if I were the judge I'd have given a lot more
money to the plaintiff because the defendant was McD.

> Now, if somebody wishes to put their life in danger, whether by
> attempting Everest, smoking cigarettes, or strapping a rocket engine
> to their ass, I say fine, go hard... but don't expect financial
> compensation to be paid to your family when the shit hits the fan
> (UNLESS your death can be directly attributable to gross criminal
> negligence on the part of the defendant). Don't expect to be paid
> to make up for a lack of common sense. (Aside: why is it
> called "common" sense, anyhow, if it is apparently so uncommon?)

If a person want's to put their life in danger they can do that. It's when a
person undertakes an activity that should be safe that should be regulated. As
for gross criminal negligence it shouldn't be required. Any neglience whether
criminal or civil should be enough. Basically if something should've been done
that wasn't and if the consquences should have been forseen then it is
neglience and should result in sustantial settlement. The reason for neglience
laws is to make sure that reasonable precautions are taken. The laws aren't
intended to protect people from their own stupidity (or at least they shouldn't
be).

I can, at times, be very profitable to kill your customers. Consider
the entire tobacco industry. The key requirement is to get their money
before they die. Tobacco takes decades to kill you, plenty of time to
extract money from the poor saps that get sucked in, usually at 13 or 14
years old.

Ravenart@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/14/02 9:04:22 AM, bestonnet_00@... writes:
>
><< Death sentences are often handed out in the US to people who kill others.
> Wouldn't corporations that kill people just to increase their profit margain
> deserve the death sentence more then humans do? Afterall a corporation isn't
> conscious is it? >>
>
> There's a one major flaw in your statment. Why would a corporation want to
> kill their own customers?
--
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
accident. Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.