Subject:
|
Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Feb 2003 20:02:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
301 times
|
| |
|
|
David Koudys wrote:
>
> Now right off the bat, my family loves animals--I'm anti-fur and a whole
> bunch of other things, and we always had a dog in the house when I was
> growing up--loved having a dog around, and we always treated our animals
> humanely.
>
> That said...
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/02/10/pets.property.ap/index.html
Hmm, didn't notice someone had already brought this one up.
> Now first thing:
>
> Leaving some or all your inheritance to a family pet--crazy to be sure, but
> hey, we cannot legislate stupidity out of existance. First off, what
> happens when the pet passes away--who then gets your multi-million dollar
> estate.
Fundamentally, I see no problem whatsoever in animals having and being
given property rights. As to what happens to the estate when Fido dies
without issue? What happens when your kid who inherited your estate dies
without issue? We have reasonably good systems for determining who gets
the estate. The one thing I do see a potential problem is what to do
when you truly can't find anyone. Is it reasonable for the property to
revert to the government? I guess I'm inclined to say yes.
> If you want your pet to be taken care of after you pass on, then find some
> frined willing to take care of said pet and set aside funds for that
> support--but that's just me.
That's certainly a better way to do it. If you give Fido the estate,
he's going to have a hard time hiring someone to fill the food and water
bowls... Of course, you could name a trustee to manage the estate for
Fido. However, one thing I'm not clear on how well it's handled is that
you really should enter into a contract with someone BEFORE you die to
be the trustee, or at least an interim trustee while they hire someone.
You shouldn't be able to dump the job on someone. Given such a contract,
there should be full expectation that the trustee will fulfill the
contract.
> So I'm not really caring about your will and whom you leave your
> money/estate to.
>
> But now opening up the 'lets sue somebody' mentality to sue for 'loss of
> companionship' due to death at the vet...
>
> Now negligence aside, for I know that happens, this whole idea reeks of 'sue
> sue sue!'
As I mentioned in my other post, I see a valid property right to the
emotional attachment to property (1). In theory, I don't think this law
is even necessary. It's not creating a new right. On the other hand, in
some ways I think such a law is good because it takes us one step closer
to understanding everything is a property right.
Now, about frivolous lawsuits. They are certainly a problem. However,
the solution is to make better property rights evaluations rather than
try and limit lawsuits. Lawsuits are one of the fundamental protections
of our property rights. There should be three fundamental results of
filing a lawsuit (with shades between):
1. The plaintiff wins, and is compensated for the loss and the expense
of filing the lawsuit.
2. The plaintiff loses, however, the lawsuit was judged to be necessary
(because the conflicting property rights were not obvious), the expense
of the lawsuit is shared between the plaintiff and the defendant.
3. The plaintiff loses and the lawsuit is judged unnecessary and the
plaintiff is liable for the defendant's costs of the lawsuit.
In any result, anyone could be assessed additional penalties for wasting
the peoples time (the court, the plaintiffs, or the defendants). A
frivolous lawsuit would be one example. A lawsuit where Bill sues Dick
because Dick refused to pay for the Ming vase he broke while visiting
Bill because he hates Ming vases should result in a pendalty to Dick. A
lawsuit that arises out of a very poorly worded contract should result
in one or both parties being assesed a penalty (depending on how much
responsibility each had for the contract - but I'm willing to hold both
people responsible in all cases - if one wouldn't be responsible, I
don't think you have a valid contract because someone is being coerced).
(1) And since I assert that all rights are property rights, I assert
that emotional attachment to a wife and kids is in fact a property
right.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes: <snip> (...) Now if there was an addendum to all laws that says "You will get slapped hard if we find that your lawsuit is frivilous", then I'm completely in support of said measure. However, who deems (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Idiots, Part Deux
|
| Now right off the bat, my family loves animals--I'm anti-fur and a whole bunch of other things, and we always had a dog in the house when I was growing up--loved having a dog around, and we always treated our animals humanely. That said... (URL) (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
47 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
