• J Lou@mastodon.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    What do you mean?

    There is de facto responsibility (DFR) associated with any intentional action.

    The mob boss situation is different from the car situation I was presenting The mob boss and his crony are both jointly DFR. The mob boss participated in the planning of the crime. Furthermore, the situation is a conspiracy.

    Each party is DFR for their contribution to the tragedy of the commons at a bare minimum. DFR doesn’t subsume other notions of culpability

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      There is de facto responsibility (DFR) associated with any intentional action.

      An act performed under misinformation isn’t intentional.

      The mob boss situation is different

      Only because the mob boss’s intent is made explicit in the example. The same boss who owns a car dealership, and all his gang members just happen to get cheap cars there that they use to commit crimes, we’re back to your example.

      Each party is DFR for their contribution to the tragedy of the commons

      That doesn’t mean anything. There’s no logical consequence that flows from it.

      • J Lou@mastodon.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        It depends on how the misinformation relates to the act. There can be cases where such an act is intentional

        That sounds like a conspiracy. There are cases where the DFR party isn’t imputed legal responsibility because there isn’t enough evidence to determine who is DFR. It means we don’t know not that there isn’t a fact of the matter.

        Natural resources are not fruits of labor. They should be socially owned. Each worker coop DFR for greenhouse gases would be liable to society