Comment by bgro
3 days ago
Why’s there no avenue for receiving risk appropriate compensation funds for having increased personal risk of death by consuming something a reasonable expert in the industry could consider dangerous?
If I skirt the law on technicalities to cause harm to an employer for example, such as knowingly implementing trivial security encryption on critical transactions, I feel I could be liable for damages. Why is this a game of spot the problem and then get off with a warning before going to the next preplanned technicality workaround that usually also causes cancer but will buy them a few years until the process repeats?
Shouldn’t mass risk of life be considered a terror level charge? Or rather, instead of saying no to that question because it didn’t appear to meet X criteria, why aren’t we finding ways it could meet that criteria? For example if it needs a political reason, we should ask how this could be a politically motivated decision rather than saying this doesn’t appear to meet any political agenda. That’s how the laws are always completely one sided abused against normal people anyway in a more extreme stretch than my example. I think it’s reasonable to do a reasonable-amount of application back.
Because the people en masse have not successfully come together to demand this.
What makes companies more powerful than the people is not that companies actually have more power. They don't. It's that they concentrate the power they do have into the hands of a small group of decision-makers, which allows it to be deployed effectively. By comparison, the people are divided, disjointed, disorganized, and distracted, and as such typically fail to come together to demand specific changes they agree on.
Idk I think there is a ton of overlap between industry and the highest levels of government. They wouldn’t want pesky things like human well-being to get in the way of profit so they get their hands on some of the levers of power and mitigate their liability one way or the other. It’d probably take a class action lawsuit in the kind of case you describe to be brought to justice.
Most people wont like this, but the answer is because courts care about if the harm actually occurred in fact, not if there is risk that harm might occur.
You cant sue another driver because they risked crashing into your car.
It would set a precedent that is unpalatable to people who sell this stuff.