My claim is narrower: the principle of retaliatory force is practicable. That is, a society can function using only courts, class actions, and government-as-plaintiff, without preemptive editcs on screw sizes or battery compartments.

As I said earlier in this thread:

> Determining the best means of applying the principle of suing corporations in practice is an very complex question that belongs to the philosophy of law.

▲

pixl97 17 hours ago | parent [-]

>My claim is narrower: the principle of retaliatory force is practicable

Ah yes, the school of theory that says it's better to clean up the spilled milk after its been contaminated with uranium waste.

▲

piekvorst 15 hours ago | parent [-]

You’re assuming that without preemptive permits, nothing stops a company from spewing uranium. But liability, if properly enforced, is a powerful deterrent. The threat of paying full cleanup costs, compensating victims, and facing criminal charges for negligence doesn’t require an official to approve one’s pipe size in advance.

Further, the principle doesn’t deny retaliating in advance when violence can be objectively anticipated.

	▲	pixl97 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This does not and cannot exist when the corporate veil exists. Make a corporate shell and throw it away like a used condom. Add to that a company can cause a trillion dollars of damage while having only a billion dollars on hand. Criminal charges don't fix things, if they did there wouldn't be murderers in jail.