 | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Two word rebuttal: Phillip Morris. (...) That really isn't true. Companies have invariably dragged their feet on the "ounce of prevention" angle. The cold truth is, as much as businesses get over-regulated, they invariably brought it on (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Business has never been free to realize that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. They have never been actually liable for their damages across the long term. They have never existed in an unrestrained market where the government (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) If they aren't liable, then why do they spend so much effort dodging liablity? I'm not sure what you are basing your claims off of, but I gotta disagree with virtually every sentence above. And I'm also talking about throughout history, not (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) a (...) I mean that business liability as found by a court is virtually always disproportionate with the damages done. They are often fined way too much, and people make jokes about it for years (McDonalds coffee comes to mind), and they are (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Punative damages - the idea being that they'll think twice about pulling the same stunt twice. Everyone knows about the McDonalds thing, but virtually no one realizes it (and virtually every similiar case) had the award slashed drastically (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
