k wrote:
tort reform is largely about the same thing... reducing the wealth of a highly democratic group of people.

Hows that?

Decius wrote:

k wrote:

tort reform is largely about the same thing... reducing the wealth of a highly democratic group of people.

Hows that?

Trial Lawyers are, on average, Democrats.

Trial Lawyers, Inc:

The Association of Trial Lawyers of America—the “home office” of Trial Lawyers Inc.—, routinely ranks among the top five PACs in federal campaign donations, leaning strongly to Democrats. In 2002, ATLA was the third most generous PAC, contributing $2.8 million; 89% of that money went to Democrats, making ATLA the largest PAC contributor to the Democratic party (see graph).[177]

The Attack on Trial Lawyers and Tort Law

And so on. Google "Trial Lawyers Democrat" for sources left and right.

dmv wrote:
Trial Lawyers are, on average, Democrats.

This is circular. Trial Lawyers are Democrats because Democrats support their political issues. If Republicans supported their political issues they would be Republican. You can't argue that the Republicans are pursuing a political stance that Trial Lawyers don't like in order to erode the Democrats funding when the reason Trail Lawyers are funding the Democrats is because the Republicans are pursuing those political stances. There needs to be a independent variable here.

The Attack on Trial Lawyers and Tort Law

The fact is that astroturf campaigns about tort law wouldn't have any political traction if normal people didn't feel that these things impact their freedom. They do. Furthermore, the idea that libertarian thought is a conspiracy operated by a small cabal of wealthy people is nothing short of paranoid. Attacking the "right wing ideology" with spin is not particularly compelling. You might instead consider trying to address the ideas in a substantive way. In order to do that you have to start by accepting that intelligent people agree with some of these ideas for objective reasons and not because they've been bought off or because they've been fooled. This sounds very much like conservatives squaking that "liberals" disagree with their Iraq War policy because they "hate Bush." If you want to influence people you have to start by respecting their perspective.

How exactly are tort lawsuits impacting individual's freedom?

Decius wrote:

dmv wrote:
Trial Lawyers are, on average, Democrats.

This is circular. Trial Lawyers are Democrats because Democrats support their political issues. If Republicans supported their political issues they would be Republican. You can't argue that the Republicans are pursuing a political stance that Trial Lawyers don't like in order to erode the Democrats funding when the reason Trail Lawyers are funding the Democrats is because the Republicans are pursuing those political stances. There needs to be a independent variable here.

The Attack on Trial Lawyers and Tort Law

The fact is that astroturf campaigns about tort law wouldn't have any political traction if normal people didn't feel that these things impact their freedom. They do. Furthermore, the idea that libertarian thought is a conspiracy operated by a small cabal of wealthy people is nothing short of paranoid. Attacking the "right wing ideology" with spin is not particularly compelling. You might instead consider trying to address the ideas in a substantive way. In order to do that you have to start by accepting that intelligent people agree with some of these ideas for objective reasons and not because they've been bought off or because they've been fooled. This sounds very much like conservatives squaking that "liberals" disagree with their Iraq War policy because they "hate Bush." If you want to influence people you have to start by respecting their perspective.

ryan is the supernicety wrote:
How exactly are tort lawsuits impacting individual's freedom?

In general, situations where a company cannot allow me to do something that I want to do in the context of their services, or they cannot offer a product at all, because I cannot agree to take responsibility for myself.

For example, I cannot learn to scuba dive because I have athsma. Now, I understand my athsma very well and I am perfectly capable of dealing with an attack in such a scenario, but no one will teach me, because they fear liability.

Another example that occurs to me is Kinder Toys. An Italian candy available in 100 countries but not in the U.S. According to the linked article this is a regulatory issue rather then a product liability issue, but the lines are thin here. Even if these regulations were removed the toys in question would likely face civil liability problems.

The problem here is that this stuff operates on a lowest denominator principal in which everyone must be protected from anything that might defile the most hapless of citizens. Some of the things I'm protected from I don't really want or need to be protected from, and I don't have a choice. These aren't always caused specifically by civil liability. There are criminal laws that come into play as well, and its not always easy to tell the difference between something you can't do because of a law or something you can't do because of civil liability.

I do think that these things are visibile to regular people in their everyday lives, and thats why arguements about "tort reform" get traction with voters. There is a sense, when the local punk venue has to shut down for a month to make their bathrooms wheelchair accessible, when the local antique store has to put a big orange "watch your step" sign in the middle of their nice asthetic hallway, when you can't buy a beer after 11:30, and you can't practice golf in a public park, or buy a bicycle with the handlebars higher the the rider's head, that we might just be a little too coddled. Now only one thing I listed there is really related to civil liability. But this is why this kind of issue gets traction. People preceive that "lawyers" are responsible for all of this, one way or the other.

Decius wrote:

ryan is the supernicety wrote:
How exactly are tort lawsuits impacting individual's freedom?

In general, situations where a company cannot allow me to do something that I want to do in the context of their services, or they cannot offer a product at all, because I cannot agree to take responsibility for myself.

For example, I cannot learn to scuba dive because I have athsma. Now, I understand my athsma very well and I am perfectly capable of dealing with an attack in such a scenario, but no one will teach me, because they fear liability.

Another example that occurs to me is Kinder Toys. An Italian candy available in 100 countries but not in the U.S. According to the linked article this is a regulatory issue rather then a product liability issue, but the lines are thin here. Even if these regulations were removed the toys in question would likely face civil liability problems.

The problem here is that this stuff operates on a lowest denominator principal in which everyone must be protected from anything that might defile the most hapless of citizens. Some of the things I'm protected from I don't really want or need to be protected from, and I don't have a choice. These aren't always caused specifically by civil liability. There are criminal laws that come into play as well, and its not always easy to tell the difference between something you can't do because of a law or something you can't do because of civil liability.

I do think that these things are visibile to regular people in their everyday lives, and thats why arguements about "tort reform" get traction with voters. There is a sense, when the local punk venue has to shut down for a month to make their bathrooms wheelchair accessible, when the local antique store has to put a big orange "watch your step" sign in the middle of their nice asthetic hallway, when you can't buy a beer after 11:30, and you can't practice golf in a public park, or buy a bicycle with the handlebars higher the the rider's head, that we might just be a little too coddled. Now only one thing I listed there is really related to civil liability. But this is why this kind of issue gets traction. People preceive that "lawyers" are responsible for all of this, one way or the other.

Sure, "lawyers" are involved because all of regulation involves the law. As you said, only one thing on your wohle list involved something that would be covered by so-called 'tort reform,' and I actually can't figure out which one that would be. But by lumping people's hatred of all things 'lawyery' into one thing, its total obfuscation and supports the point that its all just politics. And if its all just politics, then its money.

Saying that people support tort reform because "lawyers are responsible for all of this" is like hating bus drivers because your flight is always delayed...

Tort reform is an issue (non-issue?) that I am interested in politically. Large tort awards are extraordinarily rare and most punitive damages go to the state (hence why they are punitive). Punishing the lawyers who bring such suits is simply political payback.

And yes, while I agree that there is a symbiosis between the trial lawyers and dems (as you argued), the simple matter is that objectively, in this case, I happen to believe that the trial lawyers are right and thus, to fight against them (and, in fact support the rights of the corporation against the individual), the repubs are wrong, morally and factually, on this issue.

ryan is the supernicety wrote:
As you said, only one thing on your wohle list involved something that would be covered by so-called 'tort reform,' and I actually can't figure out which one that would be.

Technically, the "watch your step" sign...

But by lumping people's hatred of all things 'lawyery' into one thing, its total obfuscation and supports the point that its all just politics. And if its all just politics, then its money.

I'm just trying to explain why the issue resonates with the common man, which is different from addressing the libertarian philosophy. I don't think the libertarianism is "just politics" although I do think they are employed by those who are only interested in them for that purpose.

[ I didn't meant to start trouble, though, of course, I see now that making an unsubstantiated claim as I did is licence to get such a discussion started.

I guess the first thing I need to do is clarify my initial statement a little bit. When I made the initial statement about tort reform being "largely about" damaging democratic donors, I was directing that at the [R] leadership, not the "average" republican. The fact that the issue has traction among "real people" doesn't, in and of itself, prove it's merit. As with everything, political ideas are marketed heavily, and this is one that's gotten a lot of airtime. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that everyone who supports tort reform is a dupe or a moron, any more than I would say that everyone who buys coca cola is a slave to marketing. Nonetheless, there are real effects to pressing ideas in this way, and I truly believe that a) the leaders of the conservative movement support tort reform, among other reasons because it hurts democrats and b) that their arguments are disingeuous and misleading. Thus the support it has is among people who either really do support the wrongheaded (my opinion) ideology here, or people who don't really understand the issues at hand. That's not a slight at stupid conservatives either, by the way, because I'm convinced that 80% of the populace, on both sides of the divide, are not informed enough to really support anything.

Your second paragraph above :

The fact is taht astroturf campaigns about tort law wouldn't have any political traction if normal people didn't feel that these things impact their freedom.

comes dangerously close to saying that people aren't affected by marketing and never act or speak against their self interest, and that they carefully analyze all their opinions. That's a worthy and generous assumption, but you can't honestly believe it. Marketing campagins do need to resonate against something, but that "thing" doesn't have to be well developed opinion. It can just as easily be fear, pride, greed, hate, etc. I'm saying here that, democracy or not, support for an issue doesn't necessarily imply the validity of the issue. That sounds like I'm a totalitarian at heart, but really, I just don't think our democracy is healthy for precisely the reason that people aren't informed. The less people know and think and analyze, the less relevant broad support becomes, because you can't trust the Reason behind that support.

I also want to elaborate on the bolded words above, because that gets missed in a lot of heated discussions. I never said, nor did I intend to imply, that tort reform is ONLY about this issue. I said "largely". One meaning of that is "mainly" but the other one is just "substantially"... i typically employ it in the latter sense. There are lots of reasons the right favors this legislation, and some of them even agree with your position that a liability cu... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

Decius wrote:

dmv wrote:

Trial Lawyers are, on average, Democrats.

This is circular. Trial Lawyers are Democrats because Democrats support their political issues. If Republicans supported their political issues they would be Republican. You can't argue that the Republicans are pursuing a political stance that Trial Lawyers don't like in order to erode the Democrats funding when the reason Trail Lawyers are funding the Democrats is because the Republicans are pursuing those political stances. There needs to be a independent variable here.

Woah, chill out. I was elaborating on the reference, not making a new point. You wrote "How's that?" in response to k's "tort reform is largely about the same thing... reducing the wealth of a highly democratic group of people." This response is an engagement, and I consider it bad taste.

What are you even saying here "If Republicans supported their political issues they would be Republicans" -- are you trying to argue a circular issue by proposing another one? What does "Democrat" or "Republican" mean if it isn't a platform of supported issues, and if we're willing to be flexible about this platform, what does the new label mean? If Republicans supported Unions' political issues, Unions would be Republican too.

All my post was intenting to clarify was that trial lawyers are significant contributors to the Democrats; the party embraces them; the Republicans are visibly targetting them. I really don't want to participate in an underinformed discussion about tort reform or trial lawyers.

dmv wrote:
Woah, chill out. This response is an engagement, and I consider it bad taste.

I think you misconstrued my post, but in any event I apologise. You answered my question. I don't mean to engage you personally, but the ideas presented by the linked article in general.

What are you even saying here "If Republicans supported their political issues they would be Republicans" -- are you trying to argue a circular issue by proposing another one? What does "Democrat" or "Republican" mean if it isn't a platform of supported issues, and if we're willing to be flexible about this platform, what does the new label mean? If Republicans supported Unions' political issues, Unions would be Republican too.

Let me restate this. The arguement is that the Republicans are targeting trail lawyers BECAUSE they wish to reduce the amount of funding Democratic candidates receive, and trail lawyers are big Democratic supporters. This is as opposed to the perspective that Republicans are targeting trail lawyers because they beleive there is a genuine problem with liability law. I think this is a fallacy. For example, one could argue that Democrates are targeting gun manufacturors BECAUSE they wish to reduce the amound of funding Republican candidates receive, and gun manufacturors are big Republican supporters. This is as opposed to the perspective that Democrats feel there is a genuine social good served by gun control. To make the former arguement is to sidestep the real question in favor of making your opponent look evil.

Furthermore, the idea that libertarian thought is a conspiracy operated by a small cabal of wealthy people is nothing short of paranoid.

Paranoia about the conspiracy is always justified. It's just usually misplaced. We are not wealthy, but we have lots of guns. Remember... It's a conspiracy. It's designed to have perceived inconsistencies. That's what makes it all so damn fun.

Just keep studying for the LSAT. In the same way that the pen is mightier than the sword, lawyers are more powerful than guns. You are not going to be able to take down a corrupt public official using a dozen guns without repercussions in excess of the gains. Real life isn't like The Matrix. Get a dozen lawyers and you have an entirely different situation.

Can you think of a scarier site than me walking into a building brandishing a dozen lawyers?