|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The nanny state is better than zombie capitalism
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The Unites States is authoritarian because you can't get the lawnmower you want? ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Alogon has the right to slice his legs off or electrocute himself with the mower of his choice, dammit! And the State should stop making it so damn difficult to achieve either of those ends.
And I do mean ends.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
So now he doesn't really have a leg to stand on, does he?
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
ISTM that "nanny state" is like "political correctness" in that it has no actual meaning other than "stuff I don't like." Calling either Soviet Russia or the USA a nanny state is an insult to nannies everywhere.
You're right, Olivia. "Nanny state" is too benign. Let's use another term, if we can agree on it. I nominate "authoritarian".
Depends on your nanny. Some are strict, some are naughty.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Please. Unless smokers also argue for the freedom to light up a fattie or shoot speedballs, it's self-rationalizing baloney.
I do argue for the legalisation of drugs.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
What really gets me about this thread is the amount of people who do want the State to tell them what to do all the time, and who do want to surender their decision-making process to a bunch of corrupt, self-serving politicians.
I guess it's easier to spend your whole life having someone else tell you what to do next rather than having to decide for yourself, but is it really better? I think not.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What really gets me about this thread is the amount of people who do want the State to tell them what to do all the time, and who do want to surender their decision-making process to a bunch of corrupt, self-serving politicians.
I guess it's easier to spend your whole life having someone else tell you what to do next rather than having to decide for yourself, but is it really better? I think not.
Marvin,
Most of those you are talking at want the state to stop kissing some low place of big business and start taking more notice of and acting in the interests of the people who vote for their representatives to the executive and legislative bodies.
I don't know about you, but I'm pissed off with unelected wealth, old or new, having the power that ought to reside with all people in anything resembling a democracy.
That's where the state v capitalism debate rests, let alone the polarised nanny state v zombie capitalism one.
What 'gets you' is a fantasy worthy only of the Daily Mail in one of its more febrile moods.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
I'm posting this after smoking a cigar and imbibing a quantity of red wine, something which I habitually enjoy when unwinding on Sunday nights (yes, I will get a life one day, but this is the best I can manage at this point) both of which could well be banned with the most unimpeachable of motives on sound healthgrounds eventually, but at the moment I am probably mildly drunk.
It is perfectly possible to be grateful for all the benefits of the welfare state, and to agree that it should be responsible for things like clean water, and simultaneously to treat the state with the utmost libertarian suspicion and cynicism.
The only way to break that impasse is through an earnest, interminable, tedious, vacuous and unutterably boring exchange of "but what abouts?"
And as for the notion of "zombie capitalism", that mindless juxtaposition will only be justified when anyone with a skerrick of sense of proportion can come up with any version of capitalism which is remotely as pernicious as the zombie socialism (zombie leaders producing a zombie population) of a Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-sung or Hoxha.
It can't be done.
[ 06. May 2012, 12:32: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What really gets me about this thread is the amount of people who do want the State to tell them what to do all the time, and who do want to surender their decision-making process to a bunch of corrupt, self-serving politicians.
I guess it's easier to spend your whole life having someone else tell you what to do next rather than having to decide for yourself, but is it really better? I think not.
1. All the time is a gross exaggeration of what the State actually does.
2. Nor does the State usually tell people specifically what to do, it sets boundaries.
3. Equating the State with the politicians is problematic. The politicians usually don't give a shit about 90% of the things that regulations are about, because they're not sexily media-worthy.
4. The purpose of surrendering some decision-making processes is to free myself up for other decision-making processes I enjoy more. I quite like choosing goods to buy based on functionality, style, design, price etc etc without having to concern myself with little things like whether it's going to injure me or whether there's a guarantee of working components inside.
5. The State hasn't told me what to do next once today that I can recall. It really isn't THAT interested. I suppose I could have asked which weeds were the highest priority ones to get rid of in my front garden, but no-one seemed interested.
5a. Nor was there much advice on which TV programs to watch, other than (gasp!) some ratings that told me which things were most suitable for mature audiences.
Frankly, Marvin, the caricature you paint bears so little resemblance to life as I actually experience it that about the only reaction I can muster is mild amusement.
I'll give you one example, though. It seems my fellow citizens are convinced that they shouldn't pay attention to the State's advice as to driving. Little things like speed limits and traffic lights. Of course, this dreadful example of the State cramping people's style appears to me to be largely designed to stop people getting KILLED, but since when was that a good principle? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Now, where did I put that deadly lawn mower?...
[ 06. May 2012, 12:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... And as for the notion of "zombie capitalism", that mindless juxtaposition will only be justified when anyone with a skerrick of sense of proportion can come up with any version of capitalism which is remotely as pernicious as the zombie socialism (zombie leaders producing a zombie population) of a Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-sung or Hoxha. ...
Go to the mall. Look around. Watch a "door-crasher special" stampede and tell me those aren't zombie consumers. OMG, it's Tuesday, I
need a new lipstick! And there's a new Halo!
In any case, the freedom to shop - or smoke, or drive without a seatbelt - isn't even remotely comparable to the freedoms that really matter. For example, I'm going to go for a run later today:
quote:
Describe going for a jog:
Abdinasir: When I go out of my house for a run, I always ask myself ‘are you going to die today? Are you going to make it back home?’ But I have to run, there is nothing else for me.
Abdullah: You can’t run all the time. Sometimes you go out for a run and you see people fighting or shooting. You just have to turn around and go back home.
Running in Djibouti
OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
And as for the notion of "zombie capitalism", that mindless juxtaposition will only be justified when anyone with a skerrick of sense of proportion can come up with any version of capitalism which is remotely as pernicious as the zombie socialism (zombie leaders producing a zombie population) of a Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-sung or Hoxha.
It can't be done.
Two of the regimes you point to are utterly defunct, while a third has adopted a form of capitalism that cannot be described as anything other than 'Zombie capitalism'. That leaves Kim-il-sung's banana republic without bananas.
You've got to give capitalism credit for being persistent: many of those who would be better off without it defend it.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
And as for the notion of "zombie capitalism", that mindless juxtaposition will only be justified when anyone with a skerrick of sense of proportion can come up with any version of capitalism which is remotely as pernicious as the zombie socialism (zombie leaders producing a zombie population) of a Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-sung or Hoxha.
It can't be done.
Two of the regimes you point to are utterly defunct, while a third has adopted a form of capitalism that cannot be described as anything other than 'Zombie capitalism'. That leaves Kim-il-sung's banana republic without bananas.
You've got to give capitalism credit for being persistent: many of those who would be better off without it defend it.
Actually thinking of banana republics would the United Fruit Company be an example. Or for that matter the East India Company comes pretty close to Maoesque death tolls.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Not yet (although you forgot prostitution. Both parties can consent, but apparently if there's money involved it doesn't count.) But, then, I'm not calling my state left-wing authoritarian, either--yet. Ask me again in ten years.
As for actual left-wing authoritarian states (assuming the term is meaningful)-- we probably wouldn't have enjoyed the sexual environment of the Soviet Union, for example.
Koppel on Sex in the Soviet Union
Gorby, that nice old softie, "is concerned enough to have set up a commission this month to 'take urgent measures to protect social morals.'" [Dec. 1990]. Koppel comments (after hearing horror stories), "Under socialism, the needs and feelings of individuals have always been secondary."
International Encyclopedia of Sexuality - Russia
quote:
Already in the 1920s, erotica was treated as morally and socially subversive. The only legitimate function of sexuality was reproduction. According to the influential party educator and sexologist, Aaron Zalkind, “sexual selection should proceed according to the line of a class revolutionary-proletarian consciousness. The elements of flirtation, courtship, and coquetry should not be introduced into love relationships” (1924). In the article on “Sexual Life” in the first edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1940), the emphasis is exclusively on social control: the dangers of “unhealthy sexual interest” are discussed and the aim of sex education is clearly described as the “rational transmission of sex drive into the sphere of labor and cultural interests....
The history of the Soviet regime was one of sexual repression. Only the means of legitimation and phraseology of this suppression was changeable. In the 1920s, sexuality had to be suppressed in the name of the higher interests of the working class and Socialist revolution. In the 1930s, self-discipline was advocated for the sake of the Soviet state and Communist Party. In the 1950s, state-administrative control was gradually transformed into moral-administrative regulations, this time for the sake of stability of marriage and the family. But with all these ideological differences, the practical message regarding sex remained the same: DON’T DO IT! The Communist image of sexuality was always negative, and the need for strict external social control was always emphasized.
When the nanny state gets around to controlling sex, it can do it big time, and all for good scientific and economic reasons, too.
The USSR wanted to control peoples' sex lives? No surprise there: Soviet Communism was by defintition an all-pervading ideology. However, there's no necessary connection between holding either big-state or small-state beliefs and wanting to control, or not control, private sexual activity. France, for example, has probably the strongest statist tradition in Europe, and has long had some pretty liberal laws about sex- for example, homosexual activity between adults has not been a crime in France since 1791. OTOH, what about all those US states which long prohibited e.g. heterosexual oral sex, in some cases even between married couples ? You're not telling me that states like Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Utah, (and Florida, where AIUI living in open adultery is still a misdemeanour)have all always been hotbeds of nanny-state interference?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What really gets me about this thread is the amount of people who do want the State to tell them what to do all the time, and who do want to surender their decision-making process to a bunch of corrupt, self-serving politicians.
I guess it's easier to spend your whole life having someone else tell you what to do next rather than having to decide for yourself, but is it really better? I think not.
Straw man.
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
It appears we also disagree on what sorts of decision-making is important to each of us.
- My parents decided how I was to be educated - a combo of home schooling, private and public schools.
- I have supported myself by working for pay all my adult life (with a few short-term exceptions).
- I moved out of my parents' home when I turned 18, and I have chosen where to live ever since, whether single or not.
- I went to university and obtained a degree.
- I chose my husband. Later, I chose to divorce him. Our assets were divided according to law. .
- I am a professional singer and perform in public for paying audiences.
- I have a mortgage in my name, and my name is on the title to my home.
- I belong to two unions that bargain collectively on my behalf with my employers.
- I have complete freedom of mobility within my country, and I can get a passport and travel abroad on my own.
- I don't practice any religion, but if I felt the need, I am free to choose any place of worship that will welcome me.
There are lots of places in the world where I would not be allowed to make my own choice in these matters, or be allowed to do them at all. It's the so-called "nanny state" that enabled many of the choices that have made a real difference to the quality of my life, and it's relentless capitalism that threatens them most. Unprofitable things such as equal rights and non-discrimination. Publicly funded schools and universities. Public transit. Collective bargaining. Arts funding. Clean food, water and air. Medical care. Etc. Those things matter way more to me than what kind of lawnmower I can buy. OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
And as for the notion of "zombie capitalism", that mindless juxtaposition will only be justified when anyone with a skerrick of sense of proportion can come up with any version of capitalism which is remotely as pernicious as the zombie socialism (zombie leaders producing a zombie population) of a Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-sung or Hoxha.
It can't be done.
Two of the regimes you point to are utterly defunct, while a third has adopted a form of capitalism that cannot be described as anything other than 'Zombie capitalism'. That leaves Kim-il-sung's banana republic without bananas.
It wouldn’t matter if they were all defunct.
Their existence, past or present, is a reminder that attempts to get rid of capitalism and set up pure socialism are far worse than anything which uncontrolled capitalism (if such a thing has ever existed) has caused.
I certainly want regulation and protection from the state, but I also know that I am going to be a sight safer and a sight freer in a society in which billboards carry ugly, mindless advertisements for hamburgers and tampons and detergents, than one in which the billboards all belong to the government and carry giant portraits of a Dear Leader.
In other words, we are all better off in a country where myriads of entrepreneurs are trying to make a buck than in a country where one party is trying to Remake Humanity
quote:
You've got to give capitalism credit for being persistent: many of those who would be better off without it defend it.
Ah, dear old "false consciousness", the ultimate in Western middle-class omniscience!
All those idiots who have risked (or lost) their lives trying to escape from workers' paradises and get into exploitative capitalist nations - what were they thinking?
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Kaplan Corday,
I have read and re-read your comments. How you make what you have done of my response to you is a mystery to me. I can say no more.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
However, there's no necessary connection between holding either big-state or small-state beliefs and wanting to control, or not control, private sexual activity.
You sound very confident of that. But look at the rationale. The same reasons which have been invoked to stamp out smoking, require seat belt use, and impose various other restrictions can be turned against "private" sexual activity: namely health and the prevention of disease, hence unnecessary expense. It doesn't matter what an official's ulterior motives may be (and these can exist, as well, as you've pointed out). We've already been conditioned to swallow the argument, complete with the unexamined leap between is and ought.
It's already happening, in case you haven't noticed. Those under whatever the age of consent is in a given jurisdiction (and I betcha it's higher now in France than it was under Napoleon) now risk being branded for life if they don't successfully master their hormones. Ten years ago, a six-year-old was hauled away in handcuffs for kissing a classmate on the playground.
I haven't replied yet to Orfeo Saturday night under the assumption that readers can see what happened. (1) I objected to on safety grounds to the unavailability of a product formerly available, suspecting government regulations. (2) His position was no, that's not the reason they're unavailable, and he demands proof. (3) I suppy the proof. (4) He blows off the whole topic with a claim that I care nothing about safety, and all but a death wish. It's been a learning experience.
[ 07. May 2012, 13:15: Message edited by: Alogon ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
<snip> Ten years ago, a six-year-old was hauled away in handcuffs for kissing a classmate on the playground.
That's the first time I've heard it called 'the playground' but it's as good a term as any. Thanks.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
(3) I suppy the proof.
At what point, pray, did you supply the proof?
I gave you a link to your allegedly banned lawn mower!
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
PS Just to be clear, that's precisely why I "blew off" the topic. I thought I'd conclusively proved to you that it was still possible for you to purchase a lawn mower with a reversible handle.
If you're still labouring under the view that they're banned, we need to discuss why on earth this is the case.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
What is most peculiar about capitalist zombies is that they resemble their communist zombie counterparts in their most important attribute: their bankrupt ideologies disconnect them from reality such that they actually believe the stupidity they peddle as truth.
In the case of the communists, that the state can do no wrong, to the point of denying the gulag, low standard of living and food shortages. Because communist socialism has to be better that capitalism according to ideology.
In the case of the hyper capitalists, when the economy melted down in the context of deregulation of the practices of bankers, lenders, market speculators, the response was similarly denial of what was obvious: that the lack of regulation led to speculation, concentration of more wealth in the hands of fewer people. But they spun it into a zombie tea party from hell: that the very thing that has caused the crash was the very thing they said would fix it - even less regulation. If this is not equivalent to classic communist ideas being always right, what is?
The zombie capitalist automatons have successfully infected the very people whom they harm the most: the middle class, by selling on specific issues, like a revived abortion debate or threats from terrorists or breakdown of family. Even as they have slashed tax rates for the rich and corporations, while raising their's. They also spin a story of a communist like utopia where dictatorship of the rich is temporarily required until we can achieve a nirvana of the market place operating naturally and pristinely. Just like the communists said that dictatorship of the Party was required until the conditions are right for true communist socialism. They both ask for similar sacrifices from their publics, and tell about in noble terms.
[note: I heard a program on CBC Ideas today as was driving for 4 hours which greatly helped me write this.]
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Kaplan Corday,
I have read and re-read your comments. How you make what you have done of my response to you is a mystery to me. I can say no more.
To quote a coffee mug slogan, “It’s not rocket surgery”.
1. Capitalism is a great system (read Marx’s encomium on it in The Communist Manifesto if you don’t believe me), but requires regulation by the state, including welfare state measures in areas such as health and education, to mitigate its abuses and protect the citizenry.
2. Any government has an inevitable tendency to bureaucratic megalomania, and therefore requires incessant vigilance to prevent legitimate control turning into, at best, petty, doctrinaire and intrusive nannystatism, and at its utopian anti-capitalist worst, a hecatomb socialism which history has shown to be considerably more lethal than the zombiest capitalism.
There is no guaranteed surefire way of getting the balance between the two correct, and if someone who was very aware of the difficulty, like Orwell, had no easy solution to it, then his epigones such as ourselves should beware of black and white pronunciamentos which are more a product of Authoritarian Personality (intolerance of ambiguity) than appreciation of untidy reality.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
The trouble is that our individual freedoms are curtailed by the existence of powerful corporations. Government is but one of these corporations.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
There is no ban on conkers, at least by any government agency. See The health and safety executive's myth buster page.
There are good grounds to believe that a lot of these so-called 'elf-&-safety-gone-mad' stories are actually attributable to concerns about being sued if something goes wrong, and I strongly suspect that a good deal of those concerns arise from the insurance companies who don't want to risk a pay-out. So risk, in these cases, is not so much risk of harm to the people involved in any activity, as risk of harm to the insurers' profits. In short, if people are being stopped from doing things, it may well be not the government, but big business that's to blame.
An interesting thought, perhaps, for those who doubt the power of business to exercise control over our lives. [/QB][/QUOTE]
If the insurance companies are promoting a risk averse culture then that is because the courts have been too inclined to allow frivolous claims to be made and then given substantial damages that have made them so. Anyway the conkers ban (in the form of cutting down horse chestnut trees) I recall was brought by a local council in Norwich.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I blame the lawyers - they should all be shot in front of their families.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
If the insurance companies are promoting a risk averse culture then that is because the courts have been too inclined to allow frivolous claims to be made and then given substantial damages that have made them so.
Actually, quite often it's because people take court decisions and run with them in quite bizarre ways that the court in question never intended.
Admittedly, at one point in Australia there was even some problem with a few lower courts doing it. It wasn't until some cases got back to the High Court that the High Court was able to say, "that isn't the principle we set out, what the blazes were you doing?".
After 20 years of some kind of involvement with law, I'm beginning to lose count of the number of times that all sorts of people (starting with but not confined to the media) have run off in crazy directions bleating about the implications of what they think a court decision said, quite separate from what a reading of the text shows the court decision ACTUALLY said. Any description of the reasoning process is usually hopelessly inaccurate and compromised.
The same goes for criminal sentencing, by the way. A recent study showed that juries, who heard all the evidence that the judge did and who therefore understood all the circumstances, thought the judge got the sentence about right in the VAST majority of cases. There is no way on earth you would get that impression from the media. We generally don't get juries in civil compensation cases these days, but I would be quite confident that the same thing would happen there. As distinct from the tabloid caricature you've just presented.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
]There are good grounds to believe that a lot of these so-called 'elf-&-safety-gone-mad' stories are actually attributable to concerns about being sued if something goes wrong, and I strongly suspect that a good deal of those concerns arise from the insurance companies who don't want to risk a pay-out. ...
Safety regulations have to take into account that whatever tool or process is involved, it will be done by many, many different people with differing skill levels. People can be tired or distracted. They may not read the instructions thoroughly or follow them precisely. The product or process has to be safe for the user in most reasonably foreseeable circumstances, not just when everything it perfect. Employers are also responsible for the safety of their employees. So it's more than just assuming that since you've changed a light bulb in the past, that millions of people will be able to do so without accident. OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
If the insurance companies are promoting a risk averse culture then that is because the courts have been too inclined to allow frivolous claims to be made and then given substantial damages that have made them so.
Actually, quite often it's because people take court decisions and run with them in quite bizarre ways that the court in question never intended.
Yes, I think so. Bear in mind that even having to defend a claim which is pretty much certain to fail can still cost a good deal of time and money, so there's an incentive to play safe. As for the comment above about a council cutting down conker trees- of course, you need to look at why they did that. That's the point I've been trying to make- you have to look beyond the headline.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
If the insurance companies are promoting a risk averse culture then that is because the courts have been too inclined to allow frivolous claims to be made and then given substantial damages that have made them so.
Actually, quite often it's because people take court decisions and run with them in quite bizarre ways that the court in question never intended.
Yes, I think so. Bear in mind that even having to defend a claim which is pretty much certain to fail can still cost a good deal of time and money, so there's an incentive to play safe. As for the comment above about a council cutting down conker trees- of course, you need to look at why they did that. That's the point I've been trying to make- you have to look beyond the headline.
That is indeed true re defending even hopeless claims. And it's not an easy one to solve, because there are real problems in getting a definitive response that it's hopeless at an early stage - especially if someone is pursuing a claim for other motives, eg publicity, rather than purely on their assessment of the merits.
About the only solution the law has is that a repeat 'offender' can be declared a vexatious litigant and not be allowed to lodge new cases without court approval. But in some instances much of the damage is done before ever reaching the court steps - people may want to avoid even the prospect of litigation.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
