I am not sure that the money could have prevented this either, as it was the pilot’s error that sent the plane crashing into the houses, not a lack of funding.
Ah... read the article more carefully. If what it's stating is accurate, it was due to mechanical failure, probably brought about by people cutting corners (to save money). If it had been strictly pilot error, there wouldn't have been 13 people 'disciplined' for the crash. It said series of bad decisions, but it doesn't say anything about them belonging to the pilot. Bit more detail would probably be enlightening, but I doubt that'd be available to the public.
Frumple, I think that you are assuming incorrectly that people make money simply for the utility of it. There are people that enjoy earning money, so, while they have money in excess of what they truly need to sustain themselves, I would suppose that they just like the feeling of earning money. I am, of course, speculating, but it does not seem completely incomprehensible to me.
Well, I did include a caveat of 'sane', but 'healthy' would have worked, too, I think. Making money for the sake of making money is... misguided is the kindest way I could put it, or perhaps naive. Shortsighted would probably work, too. Money itself has absolutely no intrinsic value; it only has meaning, purpose, in what it represents and what it can be used to do. Making money just to earn money is collecting
potentia, or perhaps power, with no intention or plan for its use. I can grant there's comprehensibility in there, but it's the understanding of a kleptomaniac or paranoiac. Gathering for the sake of gathering, rather for actual reason or goal. That's neither healthy, nor rational, nor safe; we've all seen all the ways that sort of behavior leads to disaster.
One could say it's for the challenge of matching wits with others, to make profit and come out ahead, but there's much healthier (or at least safer, in an injury-to-others sense) ways of indulging in that kind of drive (Sports, games, for example.), ways that doesn't involve such potential repercussions. I can comprehend the joy of competition, I just can't comprehend the joy of competition where the pieces being played with often involve other peoples lives. I've not yet been able to find a rational reason to gather money just for the sake of gathering money; once you've got a certain amount, there's simply no (rational, sane) justification for getting more unless you intend to
do something with it, something beyond the self.
I can understand making money over a certain amount when you intend reasonable ends for it. Health, safety, home. Support for family, friends, community, descendants. Comfort and entertainment, sure, with the caveat of efficient expenditure. But fulfilling all of those still hits a solid line beyond which more resources (money) isn't necessary or even particularly useful for doing the job. It's the point beyond that, and the fervor that so many seek that point... it doesn't click to me. There seems to be no thought to it; the action of a lemming, not a man -- perhaps not even an animal, but something even less capable of cunning. It makes no sense, brings no happiness, and fulfills no purpose. *vague shrug* I don't
get it.
Everything I've said so far tries and fails only to go to compensation and not to punishment and policy. Fact of the matter is, if they don't have these large awards, then the people in charge don't care about the rest of us. They don't care; they don't care; they don't care, period. We need more money for plane safety in this program but hey "what's the worst that could happen if we don't?" Right.... Certainly it couldn't cost us Millions right...? Right? The only thing the people in charge care about, the only way to make them accountable is large damages. It makes them look bad even if they don't have to pay it themselves and they can't hide from them.
This says to me that maybe, just maybe, a little barbarism would be in order. 'Making them look bad' definitely seems to be not nearly damned enough. Failing that, take the money from the people that caused the crash; from the income of the people that allowed the program to fall so far, and everyone above them. Take from them everything but a living stipend and turn that money over to the people wronged. If nothing else, it would make the burden of responsibility much more direct.
The costs shouldn't be lower, the people RESPONSIBLE should be held responsible, damn it, and meaningfully, so that they don't fuck up in the first place.
Would fit my perception a bit better. As you say, the compensation is not truly just, but we could at least mete out the punishment so it lands on those responsible more fully.
Put yourself in their position, really fucking feel it as much as you can knowing that you'll never feel it and then think about it.
I would want the heads of the bastards that allowed it to happen. What damn use is money to me when my family is dead and the cause still walking? Money would be a
damned insult when the cause of my loss stands unchastised. "We
will not give you justice, so we will give you wealth, to forget the wrongs done to you"? What sort of message should I take that as?
That sort of wrong isn't one that money,
any amount of money, can compensate for. As I said above, money has no intrinsic value, only potential. It's roughly equivalent to give the person you love and know better than anyone, even yourself, a gift card instead of something that would actually please them. "I do not know the right action to take, so I will put the burden of choice on you."
It could be used as punishment for those who committed the wrong; but again, what harm does it do to the perpetrators? What does it take from them to make the balance equal?
I can see the legal reasoning, and understand it well enough, I suppose. It just seems terribly empty to me. There is not justice there, nor punishment, only placation, and a poor example of it.
It can be good, just like almost all well-written stories, s'just... thats one of those proverbial recipes for (literary) disaster.