Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 12 May 2001 19:17:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
926 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > 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 would not bail them out of their little worries by taking care of
> > their vicitms. We can't say that business has dragged their feet because I
> > think they are specifically disincented to take that kind of responsibilty by
> > our protectionist system.
>
> 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 just the last couple of years.
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 often able to weasle their way out of actually providing remedy for the
problems that they have caused. And not just the businesses as entities on
their own, but the people making decisions. If you could be hauled into court
for burrying toxic waste twenty years ago even though you have no ties to that
company now, you would think twice before doing so.
The fact that awarded damages are so much a crap shoot encourages people and
companies to gamble based on their perceived risk and payoff. If our system
routinely forced those who cheat others to squarely recompense the victims,
then I think that cheating would happen less. And when it did, there would
more often be a remedy available. (Obviously you can't fine someone back to
life, so I'm not claiming that there is a perfect solution, but it would be
something.)
Also, in a world where people were raised with the real world as their
environment (that is, rather than artificial consequences, which is the normal
environment for our kids) then I believe that people in general would be better
about responsibility and being "good."
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
