Welcome Guest!
 cbc
 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
Re: [CABO] Warning on New Bikes  TG
 Dec 21, 1999 14:34 PST 
--=====================_75131463==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

At 10:40 AM 12/21/99 -0800, John Forester wrote:

         One problem with these litigational protective devices is that it=
=20
becomes
 harder to separate the dangerous from the useful without having expert
knowledge of the product or process in question. Rather than improving
matters for those with little knowledge, these litigational protective
devices make it harder for such people to know or learn the proper uses and
methods.
Right, John! Now why didn't I think of that? Let's get rid of seatbelts,=20
since you have to be an expert to figure out how to put one on. And those=20
pesky airbags! (BTW, many years before airbags were actually produced in=20
autos, the auto industry was aware of the problems with airbags and=20
smaller, especially female passengers...and had developed the technology to=
=20
avoid those problems.)

Here's what I wrote a few days ago, to a Republican candidate seeking=
support:

(snip)

The other is this. For some reason, Republicans as a group appear to have=20
succumbed to this mental virus by which the nasty "trial lawyers" are to=20
blame for everything. We have too many lawyers. Our society is too=20
"litigious." We need "tort reform."

All of these claims are sheer nonsense--and dangerous as well. Here's what=
=20
I wrote on the subject a few days ago, in response to the claims made at a=
=20
website called "www.overlawyered.com":

 Intro quote:

"Overlawyered.com explores an American legal system that too often turns
litigation into a weapon against guilty and innocent alike, erodes
individual responsibility, rewards sharp practice, enriches its=
participants
 at the public's expense, and resists even modest efforts at reform and
accountability."

**********

Well, I'm going to take the predictable view here, for a plaintiffs' trial=
=20
lawyer--even if for a Libertarian as well.

The issues of governmental adherence to the Constitution, and "reform" of=20
the civil justice system, are very separate issues, and Libertarians=20
confuse them at their risk.

The pushers of tort "deform" are no friends of Constitutional liberties;=20
just ask them. Are there excesses? Of course. (The famous McDonald's case,=
=20
incidentally, was not one of them. That was the civil justice system=20
working just perfectly.) But let's look briefly at the alternatives....

Why is it that every measure pushed on us by the insurance companies--the=20
ultimate MNCs, by the way--promises lower premiums...and yet, not one has=20
ever been introduced which codifies any responsibility to return any of the=
=20
supposed "savings" to the rate-payers?

Why is it that in M=E9xico, they still build automobiles without seatbelts,=
=20
let alone airbags, and yet that same car is more expensive there than its=20
counterpart is here, with all of the safety innovations that were=20
introduced only because of the efforts of those nasty trial lawyers?Could=20
it be that the real problem has nothing to do with lawyers, and everything=
=20
to do with governmental corruption and interference with the economy?

Fact:   America has the highest standard of living in the world. Fact:=20
America's government, as bad as it is, interferes far less in the affairs=20
of business than almost any other government. (Don't take my word for=20
it--ask John Stossel.) Fact: as bad as the assault on Constitutional=20
liberties is in this country right now, you'd still rather live here than=20
any of the other places I've lived. (Or that you have lived, for that=20
matter.) Fact: America has more lawyers, per capita, than those countries=20
with lousy standards of living, lousy civil rights, and lots of government.

Co=EFncidence?

Terence Geoghegan
Libertarian Greedy Special-Interests Trial Lawyer

**********

Anyway, Ms. Sullivan, for me to really get behind a candidate, I need to=20
know that he or she understands that "The Constitution ain't a menu," and=20
is prepared to allow the civil justice system to do what it does here=20
better than anywhere else in the world. (As a matter of fact, here's an=20
idea: let's ask candidates to take a pledge that they will neither propose=
=20
or support any legislation that would limit the access of injured citizens=
=20
to the civil justice system. We'll call it the "Santorum Pledge." ;-D )

Are you that candidate?

Please feel free to call me at any time to discuss these issues, or any=20
others that may be on your mind.
--=====================_75131463==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
At 10:40 AM 12/21/99 -0800, John Forester wrote:<br>
<br>
<x-tab>        </x-tab>One
problem with these litigational protective devices is that it
becomes<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite cite>harder to separate the dangerous from the
useful without having expert<br>
knowledge of the product or process in question. Rather than
improving<br>
matters for those with little knowledge, these litigational
protective<br>
devices make it harder for such people to know or learn the proper uses
and<br>
methods.<br>
</blockquote>Right, John! Now why didn't I think of that? Let's get rid
of seatbelts, since you have to be an expert to figure out how to put one
on. And those pesky airbags! (BTW, many years before airbags were
actually produced in autos, the auto industry was aware of the problems
with airbags and smaller, especially female passengers...and had
developed the technology to avoid those problems.)<br>
<br>
Here's what I wrote a few days ago, to a Republican candidate seeking
support:<br>
<br>
(snip)<br>
<br>
The other is this. For some reason, Republicans as a group appear to have
succumbed to this mental virus by which the nasty "trial
lawyers" are to blame for everything. We have too many lawyers. Our
society is too "litigious." We need "tort
reform."<br>
<br>
All of these claims are sheer nonsense--and dangerous as well. Here's
what I wrote on the subject a few days ago, in response to the claims
made at a website called
"<a href=3D"http://www.overlawyered.com/"=
eudora=3D"autourl">www.overlawyered.</a><a=
href=3D"http://www.overlawyered.com/" eudora=3D"autourl">com</a>":<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite cite>Intro quote:<br>
<br>
"Overlawyered.com explores an American legal system that too often
turns<br>
litigation into a weapon against guilty and innocent alike, erodes<br>
individual responsibility, rewards sharp practice, enriches its
participants<br>
at the public's expense, and resists even modest efforts at reform
and<br>
accountability."</blockquote><br>
**********<br>
<br>
Well, I'm going to take the predictable view here, for a plaintiffs'
trial lawyer--even if for a Libertarian as well.<br>
<br>
The issues of governmental adherence to the Constitution, and
"reform" of the civil justice system, are very separate issues,
and Libertarians confuse them at their risk.<br>
<br>
The pushers of tort "deform" are no friends of Constitutional
liberties; just ask them. Are there excesses? Of course. (The famous
McDonald's case, incidentally, was not one of them. That was the civil
justice system working just perfectly.) But let's look briefly at the
alternatives....<br>
<br>
Why is it that every measure pushed on us by the insurance companies--the
ultimate MNCs, by the way--promises lower premiums...and yet, not
<i>one</i> has ever been introduced which codifies any responsibility to
return any of the supposed "savings" to the rate-payers?<br>
<br>
Why is it that in M=E9xico, they still build automobiles without seatbelts,
let alone airbags, and yet that same car is more expensive there than its
counterpart is here, with all of the safety innovations that were
introduced <i>only</i> because of the efforts of those nasty trial
lawyers?Could it be that the real problem has nothing to do with lawyers,
and everything to do with governmental corruption and interference with
the economy?<br>
<br>
Fact:<x-tab>   </x-tab>America has the highest standard of
living in the world. Fact: America's government, as bad as it is,
interferes far less in the affairs of business than almost any other
government. (Don't take my word for it--ask John Stossel.) Fact: as bad
as the assault on Constitutional liberties is in this country right now,
you'd still rather live here than any of the other places I've lived. (Or
that you have lived, for that matter.) Fact: America has more lawyers,
per capita, than those countries with lousy standards of living, lousy
civil rights, and lots of government.<br>
<br>
Co=EFncidence? <br>
<br>
Terence Geoghegan<br>
Libertarian Greedy Special-Interests Trial Lawyer<br>
<br>
**********<br>
<br>
Anyway, Ms. Sullivan, for me to really get behind a candidate, I need to
know that he or she understands that "The Constitution ain't a
menu," <i>and</i> is prepared to allow the civil justice system to
do what it does here better than anywhere else in the world. (As a matter
of fact, here's an idea: let's ask candidates to take a pledge that they
will neither propose or support any legislation that would limit the
access of injured citizens to the civil justice system. We'll call it the
"Santorum Pledge." ;-D )<br>
<br>
Are you that candidate?<br>
<br>
Please feel free to call me at any time to discuss these issues, or any
others that may be on your mind.</html>

--=====================_75131463==_.ALT--
	
 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
  Check It Out!

  Topica Channels
 Best of Topica
 Art & Design
 Books, Movies & TV
 Developers
 Food & Drink
 Health & Fitness
 Internet
 Music
 News & Information
 Personal Finance
 Personal Technology
 Small Business
 Software
 Sports
 Travel & Leisure
 Women & Family

  Start Your Own List!
Email lists are great for debating issues or publishing your views.
Start a List Today!

© 2001 Topica Inc. TFMB
Concerned about privacy? Topica is TrustE certified.
See our Privacy Policy.