At 12:39 AM 3/26/04 -0000, Frog wrote:
Harmon Seaver wrote:
each and every person involved in it should be liable.
If a member of a club, to which you belong, commits an act of violence, are you liable for that act?
Excellent question. The gestap^H^H^H^H Feds think you are --membership in a group, some of the members of which perform violence, can get you RICOd etc. A rather clever form of intimidation on their part, don't you think? Of course, the reverse might also be applied. Your ordinary govt clerk might be liable for the actions of her employer. Is "just following orders" a legit defense?
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 09:43:53PM -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
At 12:39 AM 3/26/04 -0000, Frog wrote:
Harmon Seaver wrote:
each and every person involved in it should be liable.
If a member of a club, to which you belong, commits an act of violence, are you liable for that act?
No, but if the "club", as an entity, does such, you should be. If the corporation pollutes, all and sundry owners and employees should be equally liable. Or maybe liability adjusted to investment or wage, i.e., the biggest stockholders and highest paid employees get the longest sentences. The concept that no one is actually responsible for the criminal acts of a corporation is patently absurd. It means that they only recourse for justice is thru anarchistic action, guerilla warfare, and constant terrorism. Essentially a return to the dark ages -- just as we now see before us. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
participants (2)
-
Harmon Seaver -
Major Variola (ret)