[pbreit]

I don't. There needs to be actual damages or else, who knows?

[remline]

So I can create antisocial companies that hurt more than they help and take/distribute profits until damning evidence is assembled using public resources, then pay back a small portion from whatever I couldn't get off my book value?

I'd say that's giving organizations rights in civil matters that only are supposed to apply to individuals in criminal ones. The end result is thousands of companies actively trying to kill us and manipulate evidence and politics for much higher profits than the ones doing net positive work.

[civilian]

You're presuming guilt before guilt has been established.

Why do companies make profit? It's because they're offering a product or service that people buy. Why do people buy the product or service? It's because the value they get from the product outweighs the cost. What this really means is that--- all successful companies are doing social good, simply by being in business. If a company is making a big profit, they're probably doing so by providing much more value in their product than what they are charging.

[remline]

The people who buy stolen goods also get more value then they spend, so all thieves are inherently good?

Some companies produce more good than bad. Some companies produce more bad than good, but the bad is primarily not affecting their customers. The latter is inherently easier which is why civil courts must be eternally vigilant.

[civilian]

Thieves are using force or fraud, and that's obviously wrong.

I agree that we should include the negative externalities in any product, and that can be done by adding taxes to products. And that we should have a healthy civil court system. And I agree that companies often get to settle for far too little. But the way you phrased your previous comment was _really_ putting the carriage before the horse.

[briandear]

Stop buying their products.