Profit margin? What a weird point of view.

They should just follow the rules, period. And any fine should be larger than the amount of money they saved by their illegal behavior and cover the corrective actions.

Here's a thought experiment. They're tunneling beneath your house and, because they skip all normal precautions, your house collapses. Sure, you don't mind as long as they're fined a decent amount, right?

▲

charcircuit 14 hours ago | parent [-]

>What a weird point of view.

It's not weird. It would be bad if the government was unable to have the funds to clean up the damage. And when someone is charging you with >300% profit margins, that's a sign that you should find another way to solve the issue.

>Sure, you don't mind as long as they're fined a decent amount, right?

I would mind, but I would feel that I was made whole if they paid me >3x the damages to the house.

▲

hvb2 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Treating environmental law as a way to make money is, odd. If the financial Harm is minimal that implies that in your worldview it shouldn't be punished?

You must view jails and prisons as a terrible outcome, since you're essentially paying money to punish someone.

	▲	charcircuit 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		>If the financial Harm is minimal that implies that in your worldview it shouldn't be punished? Yes. If I step on a patch of grass technically that may damage the grass, but I don't think such an action should be punished since the amount of damage is very small. >You must view jails and prisons as a terrible outcome, since you're essentially paying money to punish someone. No, I view it as a positive outcome as it removes malicous actors from the system.