[pessimizer]

No, because one of those options incentivizes people to do whatever it takes to get to the top, ethics and harm be damned, then once they get there to turn over a new leaf and be canonized as a saint while reclining on a pile of ill-gotten gains.

Most sociopaths won't get to the top, though. They'll just do the first half where they hurt people, then lose it all. You can watch them on twitter now, hawking crypto and MLM.

[DiggyJohnson]

What is your alternative? Lock em up? Better to get all of them and a few more than let a single one go free…?

[InefficientRed]

Yes, there's no middle ground between locking everyone up and letting people keep billions in ill-gotten gains /s.

[DiggyJohnson]

I'm literally asking - genuinely asking - what a solution in the middleground would look like.

The purpose of the sentence that has bothered you is just to stake out the other side of the spectrum from where we are now. That's all. Please argue against the best possible interpretation of comments on this site.

[InefficientRed]

>> Better to get all of them and a few more than let a single one go free…?

> I'm genuinely asking...

Your questions are not serious. You are not genuinely asking. If you want interlocutors to engage with your questions with anything other than dismissiveness, try asking questions that are not prime facie dismissive.

> Please argue against the best possible interpretation of comments on this site.

I am.