I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Ralph Nader is always filing frivolous lawsuits. I hate him. He has ruined all that is decent in this world.
Shouldn't everyone, libertarian and non-libertarian alike, be upset about frivolous lawsuits?
That's a very good article Atrios.
I'm surprised that the people of Georgia could come up with such logical descriptions of the word frivolous.
Then I remember that Max Cleland is from Georgia, and my tendency to hear dixie being played everytime someone mentions the south fades away.
Be well.
Fair & Balanced Buckeye MYOB'
.
"I've generally perceived the libertarian "paradise" as more Bleak House than Lord of the Flies".
LOL. I hope you don't mind if I steal that line.
Bleak House - YES...........
Superb.
That was an excellent quick analysis of the basic issues. Those who argue against "frivolous" lawsuits often ignore the mechanisms already in place to deal w/ them. This applies to the suits themselves and verdicts. We need only be reminded of the infamous McDonald's coffee case where the million dollar verdict trumpeted by advocates of tort reform was later reduced to a more reasonable amount.
What people willfully ignore about Dickensian England is how much better it was than the rural misery that preceded it, and that without the stepping stone of the Industrial Revolution, we never would have reached the point we're at now.
Not that 19th-century England was libertarian in any meaningful sense.
As for Galt, I don't remember his giving the machine away. I thought he performed services with it in the Gulch for money. Did he agree to give it to the government after his capture and torture?
Georgia is not unusual in having a "frivolous litigation" law that imposes sanctions on attorneys and parties that engage in baseless or harassing litigation. Many states do. Federal courts also have a rule (Civil Rule 11) that does the same thing. Nor are these laws and rules toothless. My firm once got a $77,000 sanction imposed on an opposing attorney and his client for frivolous conduct.
My memory's hazy here, but I thought that the whole point of John Galt slinking off into obscurity was so that he WOULDN'T have to hand over his Breathtaking World-Shaking Thingamajibbit to the "statists".
yah, but the Gulchers got to use it for free I thought, or maybe I'm remembering wrong.
Has a corporation ever been accused of filing a "frivolous lawsuit"? Just wondering.
The myth about frivolous lawsuits.
Foxes suit SHOULD be thrown out court because it IS frivolous but Bush telling Americans that malpractice medical suits are frivolous is a lie.
People this is another example of how Bush and the GOP are MISLEADING the public and with the intent to do so.
The reality is that such proposals are not designed to deter frivolous suits but, rather, to reduce the damages defendants must pay on meritorious claims.
Bush and GOP puts their campaign contibutors first. They aren't conservative any more, but just criminals and they sell Americans lies with the intent to lie.
This why Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl had the protestors asking question for his retire plans thrown in jail. Nothing should come to light lest Sen. Jon Kyl not get his campaign money. The GOP doesn’t represent American citizens anymore just campaign contributors interest and they are quite willing to lie to Americans to pass bad policies and they do so with intent to do so.
Why not let markets decide which lawsuits are frivolous? Or better, why not let markets decide the outcomes of civil suits?
Shouldn't everyone, libertarian and non-libertarian alike, be upset about frivolous lawsuits?
Your "frivolous" lawsuit may be another's justice, and vice versa. How do you tell? If there were so many genuine frivolous lawsuits, how come the decidedly non-frivolous lawsuit about McDonald's coffee comes up so often? Actually, the last time I saw a list of "frivolous" lawsuits, it contained not only that, but several urban legends -- the McDonald's case was the one actual incident on the list, and if you know the facts, it shouldn't have been there either.
The bigger problem, I'd think, is that, given that there are surely frivolous lawsuits, what do you do about them? The solutions usually given are to cut down on all judgements -- does that make sense? That penalises all people and also takes away one of the few tools people have to seek redress and affect change from powerful and often arrogant companies (like McDonald's was in the coffee case). Those proposing these solutions therefore don't seem to really have in mind preventing frivolous lawsuits, but instead taking away tools to use against the powerful. They don't seem to take the tack of trying to figure out extensions of the opposite sort, as seen in legislation against SLAPP suits.
I find it sort of weird when libertarians get all upset about frivolous lawsuits, when court enforcement of private contracts is on the short list of legitimate government functions.
Well, if you believe that enforcement of private contracts is one of the few legitimate actions of government, then it stands to reason that you would be even more upset at anything which would tend to prevent that from occurring, or obstruct its efficiency, wouldn't you? And certainly, frivolous lawsuits can be compared to counterfeit currency in an economy: Just as counterfeit currency devalues the real thing, so frivolous lawsuits impede the ability of legitimate lawsuits to proceed.
That said, of course, there is the significantly non-trivial task of identifying a frivolous lawsuit in advance, and deciding what to do to prevent them; and I tend to agree that existing measures are largely sufficient for that task, without resorting to a massive overhaul of our civil litigation structure.
The problem with the market doing this is why we have legislation against SLAPP suits. Whereas a small player may find that $2,000-100,000 is a considerable sum to have to spend on a lawsuit, a big player can spend that much every year (or month, or week) indefinitely. In an unequal market like that, you cannot have fairness. So you have to do something to balance out the power of the two players.
ust as counterfeit currency devalues the real thing, so frivolous lawsuits impede the ability of legitimate lawsuits to proceed.
That's quite a load of horseshit there, son.
Your "frivolous" lawsuit may be another's justice, and vice versa. How do you tell?
If you believe a particular lawsuit or group of lawsuits to be frivolous, that should upset you.
We need only be reminded of the infamous McDonald's coffee case where the million dollar verdict trumpeted by advocates of tort reform was later reduced to a more reasonable amount
And, more importantly, the facts of the case were clearly on the plaintiff's side. You can read all about the truth here. Things like this:
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's refused.
During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.
McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonald's quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonald's coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
[...]
McDonald's asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
McDonald's also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.
TownDrunk asks “Has a corporation ever been accused of filing a ‘frivolous lawsuit?’ Just wondering.”
Once again, the trial lawyers’ have their own compilation, most in th
Frivolous lawsuits should be a real concern for everyone, libertarians, progressives and all.
As a practicing lawyer who does nothing but represent underdogs and progressive causes (and often in a defensive posture), I constantly am amazed at the pure bullshit that too frequently finds its way into court. Mind you, often the bullshit comes from the defendant, not the plaintiff.
What is the remedy? I don't know. One thing that all progressives should remember, however, is that those who live by the courts can die by the courts. For too long, many on the left have lived by the courts to a large extent, basking in the afterglow of the Warren Court. In the course of doing so, we have lost our ability to organize politically.
Instructive would be a reminder that, until fairly recently, the federal courts were the enemy of progressives. With the rightward tilt of the bench (including a lot of the judges appointed by Clinton) I think we'll start seeing even more reasons to stay away from the courts. This is not only because the courts will not be responsive to our grievances, but because they'll be kicking the hell out of us.
Can’t Haloscan handle longer comments?
TownDrunk asks “Has a corporation ever been accused of filing a ‘frivolous lawsuit?’ Just wondering.”
Once again, the trial lawyers’ have their own compilation, most in the area of intellectual property we've seen Fox exploit on Franken.
Some examples:
Mattel, Inc., the maker of Barbie, is waging an aggressive trademark war against unsanctioned use of the Barbie name, attacking the founders of the "Barbie Makes a Wish" weekend that raises money for critically ill children; artist Paul Hansen, sued for $1.2 billion for making $2,000 from the sale of his Exorcist Barbie, Tonya Harding Barbie, and Drag Queen Barbie; and Mike Grove, who distributes Sizzler toy cars to sick and dying children. Mattel made almost $4 billion in annual sales in 1996, but has filed copyright and trademark infringement suits against all three toy enthusiasts.
[...]
In November 1995, PepsiCo's Frito-Lay snacks division filed a lawsuit against Procter & Gamble over advertisements claiming that Procter & Gamble's Pringle's Right Crisps Potato chips are "more nutritious than Frito-Lay's Chips."
[...]
In 1980 the manufacturers of Haagen-Daz ice cream, in a suit against Frusen Gladje, tried to lay claim to the concept of premium ice cream with a "Scandinavian flair."
Have away.
Jeebus, you people actually got all the way through Atlas Shrugged? I mean, I don't mind outrageously long books -- right now I'd say my favorite anything ever is David Foster Wallace's "Infinite Jest" -- but I do make a point of not investing that much time in books that are utterly retarded.
Atrios, I can help explain part of the market dynamics of a magic machine.
Who would back it? Someone who would become mind boggling rich, for what? For having money in the first place?
Since the point of life has nothing to do with accumulating oft-handled colorful pieces of paper, or representations thereof, and, some of the point is making a contribution...
It's not like I want to make someone else rich just because I figured out a way to power the planet for "free."
Yes, I recall the demented right making sport of Liebeck's severe scalding. Relishing in the death and injury of others, however, is their modus operandi.
There is a deep-seated sadistic streak in the wingnut mind, which ordinary people are loath to recognize. It is hard to believe, but it's there, right out in the open, for anyone who wishes to see.
I don't believe that Jesus (the person they pretend to "adore") was noted for mocking the destitute and the disabled. Perhaps they have their own special "take" on the Bible, which the uninitiated are unable to fathom.
Ben Allen - thank you. It's unnerving to think about the vast swaths of deserving literature that collect dust while people debate the finer 'points' of Ayn Rancid's 'philosophy' and 'literature.'
I remember taking a freshmen philosophy class where the professor was asking everyone who their favorite philosopher was (ha, ha.) One person inevitably replied with Rand.
'She's not a philosopher,' the professor said.
'Well, not technically,' the student said.
'No, she's not even non-technically a philosopher,' he said.
There is one book connected to Rand worth reading, though: 'The Cult of Ayn Rand,' by Jeff Walker. Scary stuff. Scarier when you find out Alan Greenspan was a charter member.
It is up to a judge to throw a frivolous lawsuit out. A libertarian's only recourse to being wronged in an unregulated world is to sue. So when a libertarian complains about frivolous lawsuits, they should complain about the judge, not the fact that we live in a world where people can sue. To disallow a lawsuit based on meddlesome regulations would undercut people's freedom. Anybody who would do that is not really a libertarian.
...
Regarding "Shrugged", I think people paid Mr. Galt for the magic energy machine. He was the government there, which made it a monarchy and not objectivist or laissez-faire. If someone came in with a bunch of solar panels, they probably would have disappeared. I want to know why most righties seem more like Ellsworth Toohey than John Galt.
I forgot to mention, Galt levied war against the United States by creatung an alternate government and then using it to commit economic terror against America. America would have blown the place apart, including the women and children (just like Afghanistan and Waco). Whether the objectivists would have cared depends on whether (Afghanistan) or not (Waco) they liked the president at that time. Chew on that one for a while.
I'm getting a chuckle from all the people trying to defned the woman who sued McDonalds after spilling coffee on herself.
When something happens to you because of your own clumsiness or negligence, you don't have the right to sue someone else.
That's the very definition of a frivolous lawsuit.
As a practicing lawyer who does nothing but represent underdogs and progressive causes...
Sorry, could you repeat that? My self-serving-bullshit alarm just suddenly went off, for some reason, and I didn't quite catch the rest of what you said.
Accusing Liebeck of filing a frivolous lawsuit is a little bit different than getting off on her injuries.
I'm getting a chuckle from all the people trying to defned the woman who sued McDonalds after spilling coffee on herself.
Yuk it up, bright boy. If and when you ever sober up, you might want to examine the facts of the case, which amply demonstrate why the plaintiff prevailed.
You were aware, of course, that she won the case, right?
No?
Town's fulla bright boys...
The myth of Liebeck stupidly pouring coffee all over herself while zooming down the road and then suing those gallant clowns at McDonald's is a cherished story on the right, and no amount of facts will change their imaginary story.
Sure, she wasn't driving. Sure, the car wasn't moving. Sure, the coffee was 40 degrees hotter than anybody makes at home (and at the temperature at which it becomes truly dangerous to the skin). Sure, McDonald's had been asked 700 times previously to change, and had refused (because it's cheaper to brew it that hot). Sure, the jury found for her, based on the facts. But... but... but... (click! RESET!) ...but she was driving down the road, pouring coffee over her head while she was doing her nails and reading a newspaper! Goddamn lawyers anyway!
All regular readers of Slashdot.org, many of whom self-identify as libertarian, know that corporations file frivolous lawsuits ALL THE GOD DAMN TIME.
Two points here. Frivolous is in the eye of the beholder, as I said, and only a judge can determine that. But, the secondary issue of how to deter them - the problem is that most lawsuit deterrence efforts tend to restrict access to the justice system by lower income individuals, while doing little to deter same by high income and corporations.
Chris wrote: "Sorry, could you repeat that? My self-serving-bullshit alarm just suddenly went off, for some reason, and I didn't quite catch the rest of what you said."
Gee, sorry, Chris. It happens to be true, as in "that's the way things really are in real life." It also happens to be the reason I posted, because I have experience many others don't that was germane to the substance of my comment.
I notice you had nothing of substance to say to the rest of my post. Maybe that's because there was nothing self-serving or bullshit about any of it.
Now run along back to the hole out from which you crawled . . . .
Atrios is right. Twice. A lawsuit can be legally deficient without being frivolous. All states have rules in place to help judges determine the difference. Almost all such rules are modeled after Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In general, a civil action may be determined frivolous if it is not well grounded in fact or law, or if it is initiated for an improper purpose, such as to cause an opposing party to incur needless legal expenses. Every state whose laws I've had occasion to review has a similar (and to my mind, sufficient) mechanism to deal with such suits, and most authorize sanctions against both litigants and attorneys. The problems I have experienced in raising a Rule 11 violation have centered on the unwillingness of the bench to enforce such sanctions.
Also correct is the observation that to go further than Rule 11, perhaps to an "English Rule" of "loser pays" doesn't necessarily affect the plaintiff with a deep pockets (Fox News), yet would severely chill the rights of low income plaintiffs to bring legitimate claims.
Atrios,
Frivolous-ness is not always just in the eye of the beholder, although your point is very well-taken. (Some claims are truly frivolous, as a review of the governing law will show.) All too often, the lawyer who is sanctioned under Rule 11 is the lawyer representing the out-of-power entity. At the same time, corporate law firms routinely file pleadings replete with bogus (dare I say, "frivolous"?) assertions, and receive nothing; in my experience, they always get a pass.
(Why is this so? See my post above regarding the nature of courts.)
This does not diminish the fact that frivolous filings are a problem. We all should remember that it isn't only big corporations that get hit with lawsuits. Citizen groups, civil-rights organizations, labor unions, etc., frequently get hit with lawsuits, often frivolous ones, brought to harass them and bankrupt them from litigation costs.
The question, then, is what is an appropriate remedy for the problem. A balance should be struck, and the issue is where.
I'm on "Wapner"'s side. That was a very thoughtful comment.
There are lots of good points raised on this thread. Personally, I think "loser pays" or any other major overhaul of the system would be ineffective - for all its warts, it's a pretty damn good system.
On the other hand, I think its problematic that everyone who cracks a joke that offends a rich person or serves me a fattening meal has to worry about litigation. The trick isn't to prevent those suits from being filed, it's to prevent them from winning. How to do that is beyond me.
When something happens to you because of your own clumsiness or negligence, you don't have the right to sue someone else.
Idiot.
If you believe a particular lawsuit or group of lawsuits to be frivolous, that should upset you.
I repeat, How do you tell? There may well be some extreme cases that are obvious, but it's not one extreme or another; there's a gradation and at some mroe or less arbitrary point we say "it's frivolous" or "it's not". But doing that in law causes problems, so how do you tell?
I used to think "loser pays" was a good idea, but I think now that the same problem applies there as in any case with lots of money on one side. If you had a net worth of a half million dollars and I could spend that on lawyers in a month without sweating (would that) I could just spend you into the ground on a suit I'd be bound to lose -- if it got to the end. Two possible outcomes: you somehow get to the end of the suit and I lose and pay you, causing me no grief at all and causing you endless sleepless nights and also incidentally stalling things for me, which perhaps was all I ever wanted anyway. Or you could just run out of money and be forced to abandon the suit or settle, even though you're in the right.
The present system is perfect, not even close, but we have to be wary of thinking that some other system is that much better. I think we should tinker a bit rather than overhaul.
BTW, make that last sentence "The present system is NOT perfect, not even close"
With the rightward tilt of the bench (including a lot of the judges appointed by Clinton) I think we'll start seeing even more reasons to stay away from the courts. This is not only because the courts will not be responsive to our grievances, but because they'll be kicking the hell out of us.
And you say you're a lawyer. In other words, don't file, 'cause you'll be sorry. Great advice!
Look, Wapner, I'll say it again, and let me make myself more clear this time: Anybody starting a post with the words you did can expect the post to be treated with the same reverence as those who start off letters to the editor with the words "I am a life long liberal and have always voted Democrat, but now I am changing my party affiliation--"; Sorry, but it just doesn't have the ring of truth.
Let's take, at your request, a further look at what you said:
I constantly am amazed at the pure bullshit that too frequently finds its way into court. Mind you, often the bullshit comes from the defendant, not the plaintiff.
Amazed? Really? Not if you're a lawyer, you're not. And a "practicing lawyer" at that (is there another kind?).
What is the remedy? I don't know.
A semantic null, sonny. Why not read Dwight Meredith's article as referenced in Atrios' post and comment on the remedies within, bringing to bear whatever expertise you may possess? I can think of one reason.
One thing that all progressives should remember, however, is that those who live by the courts can die by the courts.
Again, an odd thing for a lawyer to say, for the reason given above, and especially odd to bring to a discussion of how best to clear a docket of frivolous lawsuits. And again a semantic null. An empty statement, like "better safe than sorry", or "Best way to make the country safe is to get the enemy before thge enemy gets us."
Want me to keep going? Masochist.
For too long, many on the left have lived by the courts to a large extent, basking in the afterglow of the Warren Court. In the course of doing so, we have lost our ability to organize politically.
Non-sequitur, pure and simple, in its conflation of political organization, the purpose of the law, the fundamental reason we have courts, for God's sake, and last but not least a complete lack of grasp of the very essence of what it means to practice law. Just plain fucking bizarro.
Again, I just don't see any lawyerly expertise being brought to bear on remedies to frivolous litigation.
And I gotta tell ya, I don't believe you to be a "Progressive," or even vaguely leftish. I think you're actually more of a Know-Nothing Populist, with the usual Libertarian icing, who wishes to have his advice (such as it is) better received here in this forum by presenting himself as a Progressive.
And I simply don't believe you're an attorney, "practicing" or otherwise. For one thing, you'd be likely to use the word 'attorney' to describe you
Attention Chris Vosburg aka Self-Flagellating Blowhard: Shut up, please. You're a bore.
Dammit!
To finish, and forgive the reprinting of the last few mistakenly italicized grafs:
For too long, many on the left have lived by the courts to a large extent, basking in the afterglow of the Warren Court. In the course of doing so, we have lost our ability to organize politically.
Non-sequitur, pure and simple, in its conflation of political organization, the purpose of the law, the fundamental reason we have courts, for God's sake, and last but not least a complete lack of grasp of the very essence of what it means to practice law. Just plain fucking bizarro.
Again, I just don't see any lawyerly expertise being brought to bear on remedies to frivolous litigation.
And I gotta tell ya, I don't believe you to be a "Progressive," or even vaguely leftish. I think you're actually more of a Know-Nothing Populist, with the usual Libertarian icing, who wishes to have his advice (such as it is) better received here in this forum by presenting himself as a Progressive.
And I simply don't believe you're an attorney, "practicing" or otherwise. For one thing, you'd be likely to use the word 'attorney' to describe yourself, as attorneys do.
I think it's more likely that your litigation experience consists of a steady diet of a certain popular daytime television show in which small claims court cases were judged by (some time ago) a crinkly-eyed, slightly cranky (but fair and balanced!) retired jurist whose name I have momentarily forgotten.
Perhaps you can help me out.
Craig,
Go back to law school and learn about “standards of care.”
There are two sides to the equation. Yes, if we spill paint on ourselves we would look foolish if we tried to sue over the soiled clothing.
But if the paint had been improperly mixed and was corrosive and caused skin damage, yes, we think we might have a case.
Large multinational corporations that serve millions of people all over the world food every day have a duty to make sure that food will cause no injury in ordinary mishaps.
Speaking of frivolous lawsuits and McDonald's, does anyone remember that libel suit they filed against those two vegetarian activists in London over things in their pamphlets? The one where they hired two different detective firms to infiltrate the meetings of a group that had consisted of about six people?
They won the lawsuit itself, but lost the PR battle in a big way.
Two points here. Frivolous is in the eye of the beholder, as I said, and only a judge can determine that. But, the secondary issue of how to deter them - the problem is that most lawsuit deterrence efforts tend to restrict access to the justice system by lower income individuals, while doing little to deter same by high income and corporations
Yeppers; Dwight's post says that the Georgia solution, which addresses both of these points, although not perfect, is an adequate solution; a sensible one. I agree, for one.
It's Dwight's claim that this could be applied to other states. Not to sound like Somerby, but why is this not the starting point for discussion, instead of so many restatements of the question Dwight's already dealt with? Grrrrr!
Incidentally, "URADORK": Admirable brevity. You're my hero in this regard.
digamma, SCO new plan to fight intellectual property misappropriation
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2003/...003/08/
sco.html
To the previous posts that wrote that "Atlas Shrugged" is "utterly retarded" and implied that Rand is not a philosopher, I have a quote from Lindsay Perigo:
Ayn Rand herself, relative to other philosophers, didn't write "volumes." In terms of quality & import, however, she out-wrote most of them combined & multiplied. Some philosophers (not many) had argued discretely for one or more of the above; she integrated ALL of it & brought esthetics into the mix as well. She argued that facts are facts; that reality is what it is, independent of our feelings or wishes; that human reason is able to grasp what it is; that reason's tools - sense-perception, concept-formation & logic - are, contrary to many philosophers, valid; that these facts have irresistible & demonstrable implications for ethics, politics, economics & art: they enjoin rational self-interest, individual liberty, capitalism & what she called "romantic realism" as part of "man's proper estate" - an "upright posture."
Along the way, she demolished several age-old dilemmas & dichotomies. She disposed of the "is/ought" dichotomy - that you can't derive values from facts - by pointing out that an entity's actions are determined by that entity's nature & that a volitional, conceptual entity such as man can derive values, by thought & choice, ONLY from facts. She pointed out that trying to derive values from OTHER sources - such as "divine revelation" or range-of-the-moment whims can lead only to disaster, & in so doing busted the intrinsicist/subjectivist dichotomy.
She pointed out that volition is a causal agent, & so resolved the free will/determinism controversy.
She pointed out that facts without logic are as useless as logic without facts, & so busted the rationalist/empiricist dichotomy.
She pointed out that consciousness is not rendered invalid by the fact that it has organs - that we are not deaf BECAUSE we have ears that can hear - & so busted Kant's noumenal/phenomenal dichotomy.
She exposed the lethal incoherence of requiring that we must know EVERYTHING in order to know ANYTHING (see modern physics).
She pointed out the logical absurdity of the traditional ethic of self-sacrifice for the sake of others - if I am here to sacrifice for you, & you are here to sacrifice for me, what good does that do either of us? What is the point? She highlighted its logical/practical effect, all too eloquently exemplified during the twentieth century in which she lived: humanity's being divided up into those who make sacrifices & those who receive them; thence, bloodbaths & concentration camps.
She pointed out the existential monstrosity of an ethic that says we should act from duty & eschew happiness. "The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer & die, but to enjoy yourself & live." With that, she launched a revolution.
Ayn Rand showed that we can not only contemplate the stars, but we can also reach them - in part by dispensing
...continued
"with the notion that we'll find a "God" there. "My philosophy, in essence" she said, "is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, & reason as his only absolute."
Well, Rand sure sound like a philosopher to me! After Atlas Shrugged I came to realize the importance of philosophy. I would highly recommend it to those who haven't read it. Whether you may agree or disagree with her ideas, one has to concede that the philosophical points that she has made are quite worthy of productive and interesting intellectual debate and discussion.
Chris Vosburg: Go on Prozac, right now.
I thought that making a very clear, simple point about the McDonalds coffee case would meet with little dispute, but I seem to have been wrong, so here goes with a more detailed explanation.
Q: In what circumstances does Party A have the right to sue Party B for compensation for A's injuries?
A: When Party B is responsible for the injuries.
Q: What was the cause of Stella Liebeck's injuries?
A: The coffee that was spilled on her
Q: Who, then, is responsible for the injuries?
A: The person who spilled the coffee
Q: Who spilled the coffee?
A: Stella Liebeck spilled the coffee on herself.
Therefore, Stella Liebeck had no right to sue McDonald's, since she, not they, was responsible for her injuries. What's so difficult about this for people, of whatever political persuasion, to grasp.
I guess, to quiet some of the cries of my critics, I should address a few of the common arguments on the other side:
"But the coffee was so hot!"
Um, coffee is supposed to be hot. It is a drink designed to be served hot. Anyone who drinks coffee knows it is going to be hot. And anyone with the sense God gave to a rabbit is going to be careful handling a cup of hot coffee, since they know it will burn them if it spills.
Think about another case. I buy a knife at the store. Returning home, I later am careless using the knife and cut myself. I sue the knife's manufacturer, and in support of my suit, I argue "It's their fault--the knife was sharp!" Do I have a good case?
Of course not. Knives are sharp, and coffee is hot, and it is the responsibility of knife-users and coffee-drinkers to be aware of those facts and act appropriately.
"But her injuries were so severe!"
The severity of her injuries is irrelevant to the case--no matter how severe they were, she was still responsible for them.
I do think, however, that the severity of her injuries helped her lawyer to persuade the jury to put common sense aside and award her victory in the case.
"But she won the case!"
Yes, I know that. The fact that she was able to win a case that was so frivolous is an illustration of why we need tort reform so desparately, and of what a mess our courts have become.
http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif
"Bob the Angry Flower's sequels to classic literature presents: Atlas Shrugged 2"
re: philosophy, I'm fond (to varying degrees) of Bertrand Russell and the Utilitarians.
... ooh, and I've also found my new band name. hooray!
"Bob the Angry Flower's sequels to classic literature presents: Atlas Shrugged 2"
Mr. Flower there doesn't seem to have read the book. Galt and the rest of his crowd had been living in seclusion for months (years? I don't feel like looking it up) when society finally collapsed.
It would have been funnier to show all the men fighting for Dagny's affections.
"But her injuries were so severe!"
The severity of her injuries is irrelevant to the case--no matter how severe they were, she was still responsible for them.
I see the ranting dumbass still misses the entire point of that case. The severity of her burns and the degree of "hotness" of the coffee are *precisely* the reason McDonald's lost the case.
Ayn Rand was incredibly prescient, as all of us now riding supertrains can attest.
Ayn Rand was incredibly prescient, as all of us now riding supertrains can attest.
LOL! Good one!
"The severity of her burns and the degree of "hotness" of the coffee are *precisely* the reason McDonald's lost the case."
Perhaps I should have worded my above post a bit differently--I should have said that the severity of her injuries *shouldn't* be relevant, since she was responsible for them.
As I already noted, I think that her injuries *did* affect the outcome by allowing her lawyer to portray her as a victim.
I've already dealt with the hotness issue above.
I'm feeling pretty frustrated here. I'm making very simple, very straightforward points. I'm just using some ordinary common-sense. Why do some people have such a visceral reaction to using common-sense?
Then let me put it in "common sense" terms for you, Craig:
McDONALD'S SHOULD NOT BE SELLING ANY FOOD OR DRINK PRODUCT WHICH COULD EASILY CAUSE THIRD DEGREE BURNS REQURING FUCKING SKIN GRAFTS.
Is that straightforward enough?
Craig,
Maybe your take on the Liebeck suit would be right, if no one else had ever burned themselves spilling coffee on themselves.
In fact, as the link we provided to the ATLA’s page on the case makes abundantly clear, the link you consistently refuse to read, so here it is again, McDonald's admitted on the stand that
1) they had paid out a considerable amount in similar claims over the past few years prior to the suit.
2) they made their coffee hotter than any other restaurant, hotter than it is served at home, and in fact even strictly enforced this requirement
3) they justified this by saying that since people were going to wait till they got home to drink it, it would cool off in the meantime; yet this was contradicted by their own market research (and, indeed, the actual experience and expectations of anyone who goes out to get coffee from Starbuck's or Dunkin' Donuts or anywhere else) which showed that people tended to begin consuming the coffee in the car shortly after getting it.
4) Yet despite knowing all this, McDonald's testified that it had no plans to change the way it served its coffee anytime soon.
Can you imagine any juror or trier of fact hearing that and not thinking, you arrogant corporate SOBs, you don't give a shit. Well, I do and you're paying.
If it's not too late to inject a note of ... well, if not reason, perhaps ... well, anyway:
Angry Bear has a lengthy and somewhat arcane but interesting post up at:
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/
20...117232993158259
... about the tradeoffs involved in any effort at tort reform. Short version:
"Here's an extreme example that illustrates the tradeoff in the context of lawsuits: if we want the rate of successful frivolous lawsuits to be zero (which would presumably dramatically reduce the filing of such lawsuits), we could adopt this simple rule: "reject all lawsuits". Voila! Zero probability of a false positive. However, this entails a very high risk of false negatives--the probability of a false negative will equal the proportion of lawsuits that are deserving (because they will all be rejected). Conversely, a rule like "accept all lawsuits" will eliminate the risk of a false negative but lead to a high rate of false positives. As you move away from one type of error, you move toward the other."
Just to amplify a couple of points from SullyWatch's excellent response to Craig.
1) Craig keeps harping about "clumsiness" and "carelessness." Craig, have you ever spilled anything in your life? Anything at all? Of course you have. We all have. That doesn't make us clumsy or careless. Occasional spills are part of the normal usage of coffee and other liquids. Therefore, sellers of liquid beverages have a responsibility to ensure that when these inevitable spills occur, they do not create unreasonable dangers for consumers.
2) On the "hotness" issue, Craig, you seem to be implicitly assuming that coffee can be served only in two states, "hot" or "not hot." That is the clear implication of your knives analogy. But, in fact, coffee vendors can choose to sell their coffee at a wide range of temperatures that would all come under the heading of "hot." Coffee served at normal serving temperatures (about 140-150 degrees, IIRC) is not dangerous when spilled, because liquid at that temperature won't cause a severe injury before you have time to wipe up the spill. Coffee served at 190 degrees, by contrast, can cause severe burns almost immediately. The problem is that McDonald's chose to serve their coffee at a temperature that they knew to be 1) likely to cause severe injury if it spilled, and 2) too hot for safe human consumption.
Badly written, the author lacked any grasp of logic and human beings, cardboard characters, borrowed heavily from Neistzche(the notion of the superman who was not bound by morality)rotten dialog, all by a chain smoking diet pill addict, whats not to like?
Atlas Shrugged could be regarded the Psychopaths Manifesto for all intents and purposes. Ranks right up there with Mein Kampf.
Libertarian Paradise? Try Albania.
Here's a little quote by Rand:
"In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours." Ayn Rand
...Not too badly written, I must say. For those who haven't read Atlas Shrugged, check it out! It's one of the best Anti-Psychopath Manifesto's out there! Don't listen to advice concerning Nietzsche from a person who cannot spell Nietzsche! (see above post). Also, Don't let (alleged) personal habits of authors stand in the way of their interesting ideas!
Craig, if it's any consolation-- and you would know this if you had simply followed the good advice given, to read the published outcome of the suit-- plaintiff was in fact found to be responsible in part for the injury done to her.
I won't go into detail here, in hope of goading you into reading that which, apparently, you will not read.
How bad could it be? Come on, you know you want to...
Chris Vosburg: Go on Prozac, right now.
{sigh}Thanks, good advice. I'm not psychotic, and I have the release papers to prove it, ba dum bum.
Seriously, I already know enough to not post when drinking; to that I'll have to add: Don't post when you have a raging case of the flu. What I wrote was wildly intemperate, even for me, and I regret it. Wapner-- Man, if you're still there, and if you'd posted a email address, I'd say this to you more personally-- I'm very sorry for what I said; it was out of line.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
