Hi Will_to_Know and welcome to the forum!
I see you've already received some response. Yet I hope you won't mind if I start fresh with your OP?
I'll say broadly up front that, as an Objectivist, I'm not interested in "standing up for business," as such; rather, I'm interested in standing up for individual rights. It happens that individuals do business.
As for tools that individuals can use to push back against immorality (in business or otherwise), well, they can generally do as seems reasonable, so long as they do not initiate the use of force. I know that's a very generalized answer, but perhaps we can find some specifics as we go...
I think this comes closest to my position (though the specifics of governmental transition to a Capitalist system are far beyond me): I believe we ought to govern differently because the initiation of the use of force is immoral and destructive. Accordingly, I would like to see these changes made as fast as possible, because people are suffering in the interim. (It is a little like wondering -- "what will the plantation families do if slavery is outlawed overnight?" Honestly, I consider such a consideration to be in distant second place.)
I do not expect any radical change in our current society, however, because most of the people of the United States (and world) do not support the system I endorse; there will be no immediate reduction of government. (If there were radical change in modern America, it would almost certainly be for the worse.)
The changes we're talking about would require, first, something of a philosophical revolution (or evolution). I trust that, by the time anything close to an Objectivist system were implemented politically, that a good percentage of the citizenry would have already adopted the kinds of tools that they would need to be more successful absent modern governmental oversight and support. It's the only way for such a fundamental political shift to occur in the first place.
This may be me being a bad Objectivist, but I'm not completely convinced that law/regulation is inappropriate for the handling (or documentation) of certain harmful materials, etc. I regard it as similar to arms control. If we would not permit a private individual to own his own nuclear missile (as I would not... or at least, not without regulation as to approximate a governmental entity), due to the capacity for incredible and irreparable damage that it represents, then we might be equally sensitive to activities that can, say, ruin a river serving one or several communities.
Further, when you ask how a group of citizens can stand up to a wealthy offender, I would say that the challenges we're discussing are similar to the challenges we experience today. Wealth, of its nature, confers advantages. Bribery of governmental officials (or those acting in such a capacity) ought to be illegal, and yes, we will need good criminal investigators to uncover hidden tracks.
Yet the citizens are not powerless. If they could, in theory, unite through tax and vote and governmental action, then I would expect that they could unite without those things, too -- in a voluntary, cooperative capacity. If people do not want their rivers polluted (and generally speaking, I'd say that we don't), then that suggests to me that there would be the ability to raise funds and take appropriate action.
Isn't this, again, already a bug (or feature) of the current system? I'm no expert in it, but I'm certain that the present legal system could use reform to prevent such abusive lawsuits, as already exist.
I don't see how there was anything untoward in that particular situation. If Thiel funded Hogan, or Hogan funded himself, what difference does it make?
Well, what's needed to make boycotts effective, or more effective, is more education. (Isn't that what's always needed?)
I'm not convinced that the notion that "because dumping happened in Alabama, not here, so what do I care?" is particularly "legitimate." It reminds me of the old "first they came for the Socialists" poem. We would defend against other intrusions against liberty (free speech, property, etc.) in Alabama, because we understand the implication for liberty everywhere; I expect such a sort of reasoning might provide the impetus for Californians to take events in Alabama personally. (And if you investigate, I believe you'll find that many already do.)
I don't know how to rectify the death of hundreds, either in contemporary society or any utopia we might imagine.
I will say that a company that poisons people, and the individuals responsible within that company, ought to be held accountable for their actions (with reasonable distinctions made between accident and intention, as in other applications of proper law, and etc).
That doesn't sound much like justice to me.
Knowing that these toxins may cause these problems (if indeed we do), we would need to be extra-vigilant against them. Whether through regulation (if we can agree that any are appropriate) or economic/internal pressures (such as boycott, and the kind of industry-created groups New Buddha mentioned), if people have an interest in protecting our children -- and we do -- we will find a way to ensure that our children are protected. It remains to do so morally and rationally. But Objectivism carries with it no call for us to stand back and allow our rivers and children to be poisoned.
There is no Big Objectivist Book of Answers, unfortunately. Objectivism advocates for the use of reason and logic and evidence, which I think is a good way to approach questions such as these, and morally/politically it insists that we do not violate the rights of others through the initiation of the use of force.
Some of the scenarios you're presenting, where companies poison rivers and give people cancer, are, I would argue, an example of the initiation of the use of force. That is to say, they are a violation of individual rights. Per Objectivism, and if I am correct, they ought to be stopped. How best to do this, how best for people to organize, how best to administer the court system, and etc., are all worthy and difficult questions that we struggle to answer today, just as I would struggle to answer them in any theoretical future.
Just to put this aside first, I think too much of Objectivist thought in the political arena has been overtaken by American libertarian ideology which stems from the likes of Rothbard and perversion of the word 'libertarian'. I don't agree with Chomsky on his political conclusions, but his discussion on the -meaning- of libertarian is correct
First, to frame my answers, much of it has to do with reforming the legal system. Sometimes, there is now answer except to fix the legal system and you're screwed until then. One's financial standing ought not have any impact upon justice. I do not know enough about the law to say how this can be done, except to say that being able to hire lawyers shouldn't translate to receiving proper justice. My answers are what I'd say before the law is fixed. Parts I don't address mean that I don't think anything can be done besides political action.
Here, you'd have to, perhaps through the FBI and federal government, to bring the crimes to light. Additionally, protests of some sort help bring attention to the issue. The rest depends on the crime.
Regarding ideal law, it should be possible to make lack of transparency a sign of wrongdoing. That is, a -lack- of paperwork regarding waste dumping when an issue pops up is a sign that something is hidden. Some paperwork might be legally required, perhaps with certain classes of toxic waste (e.g. lead, asbestos, nuclear debris) that are inherently life-threatening at relatively small doses.
Besides that, it would require some study to trace activities with the help of journalists and scientists. Public reporting would be wise.
I don't think there's a good single answer. All you can do is something like the Nuremberg trials, and dissolving the responsible institution(s).
A company is more than its CEO. Corporations are (supposed) to be a way to determine legal responsibility through corporate personhood. Officers of a company are especially responsible in the sense they take it upon themselves to see to it that the company works in a certain way. Any wrongdoing is essentially their fault if they perpetuate the secrecy. But if the person is a whistleblower, that's different.
For bringing about political change, there's this thread:
