Gross Disregard for Society

Decisions made by corporate and government leaders that result in long-term damage to societies, for the sake of personal or minority gain, should be a punishable offense regardless of existing laws. This would prevent further economical and environmental problems.

Idea for the world
Laws
Vote
87%
13%
Rating
Votes
24
Views
4142
Mark as inappropriate

13 Comments

  • Anonymous

    9 years ago
    can you give some examples?

    0 0

  • In the US, some leaders in the financial industry lobbied the US government to permit damaging practices, which led to huge personal gains while causing a global financial melt-down. Some British oil companies have knowingly destroyed villages and their environments in Africa, but did not break the law by doing so because they "paid" corrupt African officials to permit their activities. These same officials do not require such companies to pay their country pre-agreed taxes either. In the US, food conglomerates have destroyed soil in many environments with monoculture, which is not illegal but destroys the land and turns soil into sand: In Florida Tomatoes are grown in such 'destroyed soil', so artificial fertilizers (chemicals) and pesticides poison the water table, which will destroyed lives in years to come. This is done knowingly and is permitted by law. My proposal prevents such things happening ahead of time.

    0 0

  • I object because it's nearly impossible to determine if something will have a negative long term effect. This power to punish lawmakers for very vague and arguable offenses put into the wrong hands could be used for very evil purposes.

    0 0

  • You've misunderstood. This is for when there is proof beyond reasonable doubt, that a decision was made knowing the consequences. A court case would determine outcomes in fair hearings. I will resubmit and make it clearer.

    0 0

  • While i agree with the sentiment behind it, and am reminded of Dr Joe McIvor's ideas about broad "corporate malfeasance" laws, I feel this needs more detail before I can support it. I also disagree with retrospectively powerful laws.... The point would be to set up a law that was acceptably broad without being open to wild interpretations...

    0 0

  • I object because government and corporate leaders are society also. Everyone should abide by the laws. Rank, position, and authority does not mean take advantage of the people that make it possible for you to have your positions. You are just a man also.

    0 1

  • Anonymous

    9 years ago
    It's such a simple idea to prevent leaders from making corrupt, unethical and immoral decisions... it's hard to understand the objections.

    0 0

  • wasnt the idea of a government a few people who were willing to give up their best interest for that of the majority....i think in many areas we have let ourselves justify getting away from the elegance, simplicity and easiness of it all...we need to hold ourselves accoutable to the whole and regain a sense of value and purpose i am so excited for a change i love you all

    0 0

  • I object because this sounds like an impossible task.

    0 1

  • Those who disagree are basically endorsing corruption. Take the idea literally.

    0 0

  • In fact, that was the case in early U.S. because corporate charters were granted for limited durations ranging from 2 to 10 years, depending on the granting state. The first condition for charter renewal was that the entity "serve the public good" -even before profit. With sufficient citizen pressure, that kind of requirement could definitely be re-instated.

    0 0

  • I wouldn't go so far as to say "regardless of existing laws" I would instead say, make it Law.

    0 0

  • ...also, I would put a more narrow definition to what would be considered "damage to societies" and how it would be determined who the offender(s) were. Somethings happen without direct cause.

    0 0

Similar Ideas:

Instantly search any time by typing

Sorry, we couldn't find
"".