And here rests another piece of the legitimacy of our government.
From time to time you see the latest Corruption Perception Index scores come out [1] and the USA always ranks among the least corrupt countries.
That's due to the difficulties in defining corruption. Here in the USA I think there is very little illegal corruption that happens. Very few people avoid a speeding ticket by greasing the palm of a police officer.
Instead we have stuff like this, where a powerful family, aided by the most prestigious management consultants [2] kill and addict millions of citizens, but they took steps to ensure the law accommodated their evil, and protected them afterwards. It's not technically corruption because they worked within the system to pass their laws and peddle their dope.
So then it's not just local police, or a local government, or even one administration that people see is corrupt and working against us, but the entire system of government, 'by the people, for the people' has somehow been perverted, and turned into a sham.
And then these same villains see how the people have no mechanism to fight back, they see all we can do is roll over and take it, and it inspires them to think about what they can get away with next.
In all honesty while they rank the US as low on a corruption-scale globally they do capture a fair amount of the corruption in the US. The US has similar scores to Bhutan and Seychelles not Denmark and Canada.
As for the case itself, it seems the court wants to protect the settlement because they know it's unlikely they will be able to pierce the veil of corporate protection and go after the owner's for the $5.5-$6 billion that is only voluntarily contributed if the settlement works. In considering the greater good I think the win of $5.5-$6 billion in additional settlement money for victims is a greater good than the restrictions on potential lawsuits against the Sacklers is an evil. Ideally any victims who had their rights restricted by this clause would have an option to be a late joiner of the settlement and could ensure compensation that way.
I think cases like this are outside the scope of the Corruption Perceptions Index. At least, your wikipedia link describes it as: (*emphasis* mine)
> The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) is an index which ranks countries "by their perceived levels of *public sector corruption*, as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys.
From skimming the court order, it seems that this is an instance of private sector corruption. In 2004, the Purdue board (which included at least 6 Sackler family members) created a policy to indemnify the board, executives, and some others against any claims/suits/etc. There was a narrow carve-out where a court decision that someone acted in "bad faith" would void the indemnification.
The adage "we have a legal system, not a justice system" is repeated ad nauseam in these cases. But thinking about it: what if we were to have none, neither legality, nor justice, but simply randomness, fiat fortuna, et pereat mundus [1].
An example in this case would be: instead of all the boring legalese, the high-paid BigCons [2], and the unfulfillable expectation of pristine judgements, to have just a coin flip: 50% chance for guilty, 10 years jail, 50% chance free as a bird. Skew it even further, for every person killed or $1 million stolen add some percentages to the guilty chance and some years to the penalty. Solve every lawsuit in a matter of seconds, nothing to debate [3], no false belief of fairness or equity, just sheer, dumb luck, for the society or for the accused.
Lobbying... that's the kind of corruption that's enshrined in the first amendment, right? So important they didn't even leave it for the second or third or tenth amendments? The amendments which are collectively known as the Bill of Rights, or the United States' founder's first attempt at crafting a list of fundamental human rights?
The problem isn't that corporations are people. If corporations exist, it's difficult to have them not be "people" for the purposes of laws.
The problem is that they exist at all. Nothing in the Constitution says that the government (of Delaware, no less) should have the legitimate power to wave a magic wand and create fictitious legal entities that are effectively immortal but are born without a moral compass.
If it did have that legitimate power, then it's still bad that it can happen for the payment of a $250 fee and filing of a stack of legal paperwork.
Everything that the whiny lefties gripe about with capitalism is actually the fault of corporations, not capitalism. Sounds like you're ok with them existing though, you just think that's possible with them a "little less powerful" or something.
Baby steps. I'm not going to recommend the complete nullification of corporations in the present. Perhaps as a long-term goal to aim towards -- but with the right planning and support. No sense in being a revolutionary.
Perhaps start off with removing the corporate veil. Officers of corporations (or any incorporated entity) are now personally liable for what goes on. This could pave the way for trimming down extra-national entities like multinational corps (the risk is immense for there to be bodies buried in various dark corners of huge corporations -- only the insane would take on these positions).
> Baby steps. I'm not going to recommend the complete nullification of corporations in the present. Perhaps as a long-term goal to aim towards -- but with the right planning and support. No sense in being a revolutionary.
Why would you ever work towards it as a long term goal? Once your faction had even a little political power, you'd have more control over corporations. And they're quite powerful in their way. They'd become too appealing at that point.
Much more fun to tame the godzilla monster and sic it on your enemies.
Lobbying can be murky but is not comparable to raw corruption like in third-world countries. Anyone is free to lobby a politician...if I call my local representative or Senator and press them about an issue, then I'm lobbying. Equating it with corruption frankly indicates ignorance.
But do you think it would poise a difference in consideration if you had a few millions that could be directed to campaign contributions? How do you think this fares agaisnt a vote for a certain matter? What about an issue that the average voter would need some research to fully understand what's at play? It fathoms me that you can't see the asymmetry. I wouldn't call that murky at all, but an atrocity.
From time to time you see the latest Corruption Perception Index scores come out [1] and the USA always ranks among the least corrupt countries.
That's due to the difficulties in defining corruption. Here in the USA I think there is very little illegal corruption that happens. Very few people avoid a speeding ticket by greasing the palm of a police officer.
Instead we have stuff like this, where a powerful family, aided by the most prestigious management consultants [2] kill and addict millions of citizens, but they took steps to ensure the law accommodated their evil, and protected them afterwards. It's not technically corruption because they worked within the system to pass their laws and peddle their dope.
So then it's not just local police, or a local government, or even one administration that people see is corrupt and working against us, but the entire system of government, 'by the people, for the people' has somehow been perverted, and turned into a sham.
And then these same villains see how the people have no mechanism to fight back, they see all we can do is roll over and take it, and it inspires them to think about what they can get away with next.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index [2] https://hub.jhu.edu/2022/06/30/mckinsey-opioid-documents-arc...