Lack of ESC Awarness Kills People
in [Technical]
|
Prev: solutions manual to Advanced Modern Engineering Mathematics, 3rd Ed., by G. James
Next: Coaches.
From: Tegger on 12 Mar 2010 19:18 jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote in news:Ot6dnZdpuP39AQfWnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d(a)bright.net: > Congress and Presidents didn't tell McDonald's to put a > temperature warning on a cup of coffee. They did that all on their > own. And they didn't do it to protect fools from hot coffee. No, McDonald's put the warning there to help prevent the fools from being able to sue McDonald's if they burnt themselves on the hot coffee. Fools have always existed and always will exist. In a civilized world, fools pay for their foolishness on their own. But Congress in the early-'80s enabled the fools to get paid out of somebody else's deep-pockets for their foolishness. It was called "tort reform". The idea was to make suing easier, and /boy/ did it work. You should read "Liability: the Legal Revolution and its Consequences", by Peter W. Huber, Basic Books, 1988. Might open your eyes. Expansion of tort was a noble idea, but one that has proven enormously toxic all around. Except to the tort bar, which has used that expansion to enrich itself obscenely. > > It wasn't congress and the president that moved McDonald's to > take that action. Yes it was. McDonald's had to protect themselves somehow from liability run wild. > It was 12 ordinary people who motivated McDonald's to do that. Using the power of the state. Absent that state power, those "12 ordinary people" had not one leg to stand on. > And believe me, Congress and the presidents would love to > take that power away from ordinary people. And someday they may > succeed in curtailing that power of ordinary people if they ever get > enough support of fools like you. Do you truly believe that? Congress is made up of many lawyers, as is the executive branch. They absolutely LOVE loose and promiscuous tort! That's how they make their money. -- Tegger
From: jim on 12 Mar 2010 20:37
Tegger wrote: > > jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote in > news:Ot6dnZdpuP39AQfWnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d(a)bright.net: > > > Congress and Presidents didn't tell McDonald's to put a > > temperature warning on a cup of coffee. They did that all on their > > own. And they didn't do it to protect fools from hot coffee. > > No, McDonald's put the warning there to help prevent the fools from being > able to sue McDonald's if they burnt themselves on the hot coffee. > > Fools have always existed and always will exist. In a civilized world, > fools pay for their foolishness on their own. But Congress in the > early-'80s enabled the fools to get paid out of somebody else's > deep-pockets for their foolishness. It was called "tort reform". The idea > was to make suing easier, and /boy/ did it work. Your information is completely bogus. Ronald RayGun's tort reform was designed to limit damages that juries are allowed to award. That is in part why judges can overrule juries and reduce the amount that is actually paid to a small fraction of what the jury awarded. Of course that part of the process all happens after the sensational headlines that get you in a lather go away. > > You should read "Liability: the Legal Revolution and its Consequences", by > Peter W. Huber, Basic Books, 1988. Might open your eyes. Expansion of tort > was a noble idea, but one that has proven enormously toxic all around. > Except to the tort bar, which has used that expansion to enrich itself > obscenely. Maybe you should read the constitution. Might open your eyes. > > > > > > > It wasn't congress and the president that moved McDonald's to > > take that action. > > Yes it was. McDonald's had to protect themselves somehow from liability run > wild. > Oh posh. Mcdonald's sells enough coffee every hour to cover any liability damages that have ever had to pay for a hot cup of coffee. > > It was 12 ordinary people who motivated McDonald's to do that. > > Using the power of the state. Absent that state power, those "12 ordinary > people" had not one leg to stand on. What the heck does that mean? Do you want to abolish due process? Or do you want to abolish the whole constitution? Would you prefer the state to just step aside altogether. Then the citizenry could tar and feather and run the culprits out of town on a rail whenever they feel and injury has occurred. Is that how they do it in a a civilized world? > > > And believe me, Congress and the presidents would love to > > take that power away from ordinary people. And someday they may > > succeed in curtailing that power of ordinary people if they ever get > > enough support of fools like you. > > Do you truly believe that? Congress is made up of many lawyers, as is the > executive branch. They absolutely LOVE loose and promiscuous tort! That's > how they make their money. So you don't like the system the founding father's created. Too bad. Fortunately they made it pretty solid and not very easy to change. |