this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2026
652 points (99.5% liked)

Showerthoughts

44478 readers
727 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
vatlark@lemmy.world
forkball@lemmy.world
SuperEars@lemmy.world
652
Any corporate fine that has a maximum amount is absurd given that we don't cap the size of corporations (lemmy.ca)
submitted 4 days ago by masterspace@lemmy.ca to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
72 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I was just reading about a violation of the Canadian fisheries act that has a maximum penalty of $200k, and realized the absurdity of there ever being a maximum fine.

There should be no maximum fine on any corporate penalty given that we do not cap the size of corporations or their bank accounts.

It would be like having maximum jail terms of 25 years for immortal beings that can live to 10,000.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CombatWombat@feddit.online 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

When we talk about prison reform, we talk about the three main functions of prison: incapacitation, rehabilitation and deterrence. Corporate persons are conceptual, amoral agents incapable of personal growth, so I don't think rehabilitation is a useful lens for thinking about corporate fines, but I think deterrence and incapacitation are worthwhile. Fines as a percentage of corporate income speaks to incapacitation -- a corporation with less money can do less harm -- but it doesn't address deterrence. In a perfectly efficient capitalist economy, we should expect that corporations will take any option that nets more revenue than it costs to implement, inclusive of any fines, and the fine is only deterrent if it makes the offense so expensive as to be unprofitable, which is only loosely correlated with corporate income. I'd say, it's the maximum of: a percentage of corporate income, the cost to fix the damage, and the amount of profit the corporation derived from the fined behavior.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago

I generally agree with the small caveat that you can also extend punishment to the people who run the corporation and make decisions.

We do not need to end corporate liability at the boundary of the corporation.