You don't have a moral case for that kind of rule though. The end doesn't justify the mean. If a drunk person drives his Chevy through a crowd and kill 10 people, why would GM pay 10 millions?
Our country was built on personal responsibility and accountability as core values. This applies to businesses by extension (business = shareholders).
It's better to simply mandate a certain minimum. Seat belts, backup cameras and ABS are examples.
That's why this only applies to companies who have sold 1 million cars... The individual drunk idiot then disappears into the noise, which will apply equally to all car companies.
Consider the proposal less of a fine for each death, and more of a taxation based on death rate.
You saying there is no moral case for it does not make it so.
I think the idea that was proposed is at least academically interesting to consider. If you can’t see why, maybe you should dig into why your moral values are what they are: what tradeoffs are you making?
Our country was built on personal responsibility and accountability as core values. This applies to businesses by extension (business = shareholders).
It's better to simply mandate a certain minimum. Seat belts, backup cameras and ABS are examples.