First of all, who said the idea (i.e. some particular company) is a bad idea? Is it a logically bad idea, like a waste of time & money, or a morally bad idea which shouldn't matter to the government since morals are based on opinion.
If you as a person are choosing to put money over the lives of others, I would call you a bad person.
If a company is choosing to put money over the lives of people, I would call that company a bad idea.
Good companies can make poor decisions and still be good companies. Anyways, most thing in life have some varying degree of danger attached to them and no one working on an oil rig doesn't know it's dangerous. I wouldn't call that a bad person/decision/idea. Again though, not everyone would agree that putting money over lives is a bad thing. That's what makes morals so much of a pain in the ass (and yet simultaneously interesting), they're based on opinion.
Anyways, the court has agreed that one of it's patrons happens to take the form of an idea. I'm not going to delve back into this discussion since it'll go nowhere, just wanted to remind you of that fact.
Yes, I am well aware that the court happens to be pawns of corporate giants. So, do you know who Walmart is going to vote for in the 2012 election?
Nope, can't say that I do, but luckily the supreme court has also decided that money = speech!
I <3 legislation hehe.
Can you prove they paid to get positive results, or that they paid the costs of the testing? If you try to bribe an officer and get caught then there is proof you tried to bribe the officer. Also, here's a simple example. Under the law we give different punishments to different people, for the same crimes. No we don't, you say. Yes, we do. Children can commit murder but not face the same charges as an adult, so if a company hypothetically committed murder maybe the punishment for a corporate-person is a financial toll as opposed to one paid with jail time?
So, if a person kills another person, they loose their freedom and are thrown in prison.
If a company kills another company, they pay a fine and go on their merry little way.
You are going to sit there and tell me that sounds even to you? Seriously?
And there is a massive difference between comparing a child with a mind that is not yet developed to an adult with a developed mind, and comparing that to an adult with a developed mind and a company which is a group of adults with developed minds.
I'm telling you different kinds of people receive different punishments for the same crime. If a person (child) murders another person, they rarely get the same punishment that a person (adult) would. So is it that much of a stretch that if a person (company) is found guilty of murder that their punishment most of the time would be different from the other 2 aforementioned types of persons? I say no.
Let me ask you this, would you prefer companies not considered persons (I know you're nodding your head so far), so that if someone dies due to their company they are not at all liable? If an idea kills someone, no action is taken (i.e. Nazism).
Wait a second you're saying a soldier doesn't know how to make informed leadership decisions, for example while under enemy fire? That's bullshit and you know it. A small business owner doesn't mean that the business is successful, they could be driving it right off a cliff and still be small business owners. Someones profession should have nothing to do with their potential candidacy.
A soldier usually knows leadership skills, yes, but they don't have to. A small business owner has to know how to keep their business afloat or they are going to be out of a business soon.
And yes, there is a difference in professions. I'd rather have a physicist then a burger flipper. (Extreme comparison, but you get my drift.)
Most people at one point in their life have menial jobs (i.e. burger flipper) and it means absolutely nothing about them as far as intelligence or leadership skills go.