Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 13 May 2001 15:14:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
774 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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.
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 later.
Those huge jury awards rarely stand up.
As to weasling out of providing a remedy, that would seem to argue in favor
of the punitive damages. If you are refering to the personal level, then as
I noted, we are in agreement.
>
> 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.)
Government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers. I'm not
sure there's a good solution except the Late (sniff) Douglas Adams' one
(ship 'em off planet). :-)
>
> 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
Business would be business, and would be just as big of weasels as they
would be allowed to be ("Hey, we gotta be competitive with that other
weasel!"). Power needs a counter-balance - it doesn't have to be
"government", but it has to be something. I readily admit that I'm opting
for the devil I know rather than the one I don't.
Bruce
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
