[Vision2020] A Pledge to real Americans (Mikey Moore)

[Andreas Schou]

On 11/23/06, Tony <tonytime at clearwire.net> wrote:
> Andreas, thanks for the clarification, but it was my understanding that tort
> reform would affect far more litigation than strictly malpractice......?
> Whether it is a doctor being sued or a municipality, would tort reform not
> affect both, and would not the resulting reduction in judgments benefit the
> average insurance holder, even as it understandably upset the democratic
> friendly attorney's lobby?

T --

That depends, Tony, on whether you believe torts ever serve a
legitimate purpose. The major problem with tort reform is that it
doesn't take into account the reason that judgements are often higher
than the actual monetary losses of the aggrieved party. The fact is,
most tortious behaviour does not, in fact, get litigated. The reason
for this is that going to civil court is an expensive process with
uncertain results -- it's not the case that every civil case ends up
with positive results for the person who's suing. In fact, since these
cases are most often taken by the weak against the powerful, or, at
least, by people with relatively normal incomes against the rich, the
person suing often has to, effectively, overcome a more experienced
attorney who can devote all of his time to the case.

>From a strictly economic persepective, if you're engaging in chronic
illegal behavior that nets some gain, it's only rational to stop when
the cost of continuing to engage in that behavior exceeds the cost of
stopping that behavior. In the particular case of torts, this means
that, when its proven that the behavior resulting in the tort is
chronic, the judgment has to be larger, often much larger, than the
liability incurred by a single illegal act.

Tort reform short-circuits that necessary condition of justice,
allowing individuals and groups who engage in chronic illegal behavior
to continue to do so, so long as not everyone who is victimized by
that behaviour act actually sues and wins. So, in terms of actually
improving our lives ... no, I can't imagine how it actually could.

> Hmmmm,  "paycheck protection"?  Would that have anything to do with
> protecting union workers from having their wages automatically withheld and
> given to political candidates they may or may NOT support?

That's a fair enough characterization, and it's fine, so long as
you're also willing to support preventing the benefits of my work from
being donated, through my corporation, to political candidates I may
or may not support.

-- ACS

> Save some dressing for me.       -T