You don’t need to know the profit - it’s the corporation’s job to estimate that before making a decision. You just need to know the cost of the harm done and the chance that a violator will be caught and fined.

The OP is proposing that there shouldn’t be a cap specifically because we don’t cap the size of corporations.

There’s no contradiction. You want the motivation to be less than the harm breaking the rule does, not because you want to deter the corporation from ever breaking the rule but because if that condition is satisfied then society is actually better off if the corporation does break the rule (and pay the fine). Let’s say you have a rule against dumping toxic waste. You decide that having one less gallon of toxic waste dumped is worth $1,000 to you. If the corporation can make a profit of more than $1,000 per gallon by dumping the waste, it dumps the waste, you get paid, and both sides benefit.

The OP is proposing that a fine (whether or not it is capped) should have some relation to the size of the corporation being fined, and I’m saying why that’s wrong.

Caps make sense in some circumstances (like how a library’s overdue book fine caps at the price of replacing the book). I don’t know anything about the Canadian fisheries act and whether its cap is reasonable, but a reasonable cap (if there is one) generally shouldn’t have anything to do with the size of the corporation, unlike what OP proposes.

The cost of the violation is determined in advance, and should be proportional to how much it would cost to pay people to accept the risk of harm, not how much it would cost to undo the harm. People are usually quite willing to accept a small risks of harm even if that harm can’t be undone. For example, currently US government policy generally values the life of an American at (IIRC) about eight million dollars, which corresponds to the average American being willing to take a one in a million chance of dying for eight dollars. Someone who takes that bet gets eight dollars even if he’s the unlucky one who dies.

I never said that corporate fines are a deterrent for bad behavior. Recouping the cost to society should be the sole motivation for the fines. If the cost of the fine is less than the cost of compliance but more than the cost of the harm done, then corporations should break the rule and pay the fine. Everyone is, in expectation, better off that way.

Corporations aren’t moral agents, and therefore a fine against a corporation should be intended to compensate for the illicit harm done (adjusted by the probability of getting caught). The compensation necessary does not depend on how much money the corporation has available. In other words, it’s like a “you break it, you buy it” policy - you charge as much as the broken thing costs, regardless of how much money the person who broke it happens to have.

Edit: here’s another way of thinking about it. A corporation’s motivation to break a rule is equal to (expected_profit - fine * chance_of_getting_caught). You want that motivation to be less than the harm breaking the rule does. The size of the corporation isn’t a variable in the equation.

I didn’t even notice that she had a wardrobe malfunction back when I saw the movie as a kid - I only learned that bit of Star Wars trivia a few years later when I got internet access. I think they left it in, but I also figure that Femi Taylor probably had pasties on under that costume anyway.

trying to Learn

Is that what kids are calling it these days?

Return of the Jedi Special Edition in 1997 was a… formative experience for me.

His role as Picard defined what a good leader and authority figure should be like for me.

Oh, was the looting in self-defense?

An oddly positive portrayal of the sort of protest culture that I think residents of most other countries are glad not to share. Even French people aren’t happy with it - the main political consequence of the protests so far has been increased support for Le Pen by people who want forceful government action against the protestors.

I suspect that the majority of voters would prefer a policy of tolerance over the Republican party’s performative cruelty, but “we should treat these harmless eccentrics with basic human dignity” is one thing while transgender participation in sports or permanent procedures done on children are another.