Holding actual people liable sounds like a more effective option. The insurance would just be included into the cost of doing business and make everything more expensive. Insurance makes everything worse.
Holding actual humans liable (with appropriate levels of harshness) would make actual humans more likely to take preventative steps. Holding shareholders somewhat liable (maybe extra taxes on sales of a companies stock) might be useful also.
Sarbanes-Oxley in the US holds top management personally responsible too, and compliance is taken far more seriously than with other regulations as a result.
The incentives are to price risk correctly so that they can price their policies cheap enough to beat the competition while not going out of business from paying more in claims than they receive in premiums.
There is a cap to how much and insurance company can make (health insurance for instance are capped at 20% of premiums). To make more money next year they can sign up more policy holders or make sure costs go up. Companies also often have a large stake in the fix it shops/clinics/hospitals so they recoup much of their cost that way. Market capture, if it cost more to buy insurance than to fix it/absorb the cost without insurance why would you buy insurance. It is useful for the insurance companies to see costs increase.
Sure there can be good arguments for having insurance. Insurance companies are part of the financial sector and will be working to make more money. That is a fine incentive for the insurance industry but for the insurance consumer it is a reason to be skeptical and careful.
Are we talking hypothetical utopia or something that could actually happen? Insurance probably isn’t the most perfect solution but it’s the most feasible. These exact policies and insurers already exist.
And why the hell would anyone want a job where a mistake results in personal ruin? Sure, there are a lot of shitty companies and people running them, but mistakes also happen when people are trying to do a good job. It’s not possible to completely prevent a data breach even with an unlimited budget.
I think the best solution is to weed out the people who behave irresponsibly and have an environment where we learn from the ones who are responsible and fail anyway.
Very true. If you don't want to be exposed to such rich, you're free to work elsewhere. No one is forcing you to take on these jobs that immiserate society.
The most reckless will, of course; but most people won't -- they just won't do it.
Corporations evolved the liability structure they have today so that large undertakings, where many people have to work together and where the bad deeds of a small number of those people could sink the undertaking, were something that regular -- people who can't self insure -- could be a part of, as investors, managers, staff, &c, &c.
Limited liability may make accountability too narrow; but blanket personal liability makes it far too broad. It's not a solution for running a large, complex economy in a more accountable way.
And 70 years ago I would agree with you, but now we have a handful of individuals who are the economy with wealth that's rivaling nations. Something has gone awry.
Yes, there are some people who thrive on risk and will do things like jump off a mountain in a wing suit just for the thrill of it. That doesn't mean making that sort of personal recklessness legally mandatory for employment is a good idea.
This sort of personal liability OP is proposing would just ensure the security industry is dominated by highly compensated compulsive gamblers because nobody else is insane enough to take the risk. It's an absolutely ridiculous idea.
I would like to see it go into more philanthropic endeavors. Of course, setting aside for a reasonably comfortable future is important also. Some luxuries are always nice but are they really going to be that great when you get old enough to need assistance and there is no one around with the time or education to help.
Don't worry about it too much. That article doesn't link to a study, so we don't know what it actually says or how it was conducted. The article itself doesn't mention if the study tried to distinguish between correlation and causation with fast walking and longevity.
For an example of the problem, I tend to walk fast. But also, my family history shows a very strong tendency toward longevity (most of my known ancestors who didn't die as a result of injury lived to be more than 100 years old). If I live that long, is it because I walk fast or because I have favorable genetics?
So, this is a single article vaguely discussing some findings of some sort that were made by a pedometer company for marketing purposes. I would take anything it says with a huge block of salt.
On another note about doing everything slowly, several decades ago I worked with an electronics engineer who I still consider to be the finest engineer of any sort that I've ever encountered. But he was slow. He talked slow, he moved slow, he worked slow (although the quality of his work was such that it rarely needed revision, so ended up being fast in the big picture). He lived to be more than 80.
You can do the same with wood, just do not glue it. On the other hand there is something to be said for making something that looks a certain way (even if it is hidden in the final presentation) for the enjoyment of the craft person. On the other other hand, it can cost more and be more time consuming.
I have not been to Mexico City or Vancouver but would like to see both.
It seems much of the US (and maybe the rest of the world, I don't know) is becoming very homogenized. Especially along large roads and highways. This is not a new or startling observation, but I do miss the diversity that I remember from my younger years.
My reply here is just bout the one quote. I more or less agree with the sentiment of your post. But..
Isn't the goal of tetris to not build the wall!?!?
I think the point of the game tetris is to build a wall or at least could be thought of that way. Each line that you completed and moves off the bottom of the screen is a completed section of wall and the goal is to make a hole free wall for as long as you can.
Holding actual humans liable (with appropriate levels of harshness) would make actual humans more likely to take preventative steps. Holding shareholders somewhat liable (maybe extra taxes on sales of a companies stock) might be useful also.
reply