Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

At some point, an interesting wrinkle will present itself in civil tort litigation.


"I'd have sustained minimal damage if I'd have just hit that [dog / liberal / interracial gay couple burning the American flag], but my car deliberately crashed itself into a wall. Now my suit is ruined by this foam, I spilled my coffee, the cat suffocated, and my car is destroyed. [Automaker] owes me a new car, a new suit, a new cat, and a new coffee, plus damages for my emotional suffering."


Unless some uniform legislation is passed to specifically direct liability in such cases, the designers of driverless cars are going to find themselves in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation from time to time, regardless of the overall reduction in fatalities, injuries, and property damage.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

If I were a betting man, the 'owner' will end up being liable. Can't see how legislation, considering the politics/money of it all, would absolve the lowest common denominator I.E. the poorest.

Erat

iTrader: (5)

Don't people have to sign liability wavers?

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

In the above case, the owner is the litigant. And he can't be held 100% liable, since he didn't code the software which made the decision.


You're not the first person I've heard express this sort of sentiment.

You know all those ads you see on TV from lawyers and lawyer-referral services, especially the ones collecting clients for mass-tort litigation? Those are a pretty good indicator of how much the law is biased in favor of "the poorest individuals."

There's a world of difference between legislation (created by elected people to pander to the voters) and regulation (created by appointed people to pander to the corporations on whose boards of directors they sit.)

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

Not sure I understand your point but it's OK, I don't have to.

Sort of to my point. Regulations are the outcome of Legislation. Plenty of examples where the regulations written don't match the intent of the legislation passed.

Well meaning legislatures (i'll leave it at that) vote on a law then pass it along to the commitees to write the actual statutes which can be mere shells of what the lawmakers intended, or voted on.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

The context of the conversation was tort law.


I inferred from the comment being responded to the idea that civil law, and specifically tort law, was perceived as being biased against "common folk."

My response gave an example of how tort law is, in fact, largely biased in favor of "common folk." While people may have varying opinions about whether or not widespread abuse of the tort system exists, the fact is that civil juries routinely find in favor of individual plaintiffs in tort cases.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

Actually I said "I.E. the poorest" not "common folk". But, maybe the common folk are the poorest. No matter.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

They would appear to be:



(I'll never understand why so many people choose to be poor, but whatever... Not my problem.)

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

Thanks, I knew the answer.

(I'll never understand why so many people choose to be poor, but whatever... Not my problem.) [/QUOTE]

Can you imagine a world where everyone was 'rich'? Impossible...

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Lots of people espouse a world in which everyone is [something.]

College education, free healthcare, $15/hr jobs, salvation though Christ... You name it, someone thinks everyone should have it.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

Venereal disease?

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

There's probably someone...


It's like Rule 34 for politics. If it exists, someone believes it to be an inalienable liberty.

good2go

iTrader: (2)

Turbo Miata

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

I draw no conclusions but curious on the following observation. How can it be that the 'liberals' I.E. Big Government types use the least from the government?




https://wallethub.com/edu/states-mos...0/#red-vs-blue

Monk

iTrader: (3)

The president doesn't dictate state budgets. I would be more interested in numbers that took into account the makeup of the state's legislature. For instance, New Mexico voted republican in the presidential election, but has a democratic house and senate.
Most of those figures floating around the internet also don't separate huge federal expenses like the operation of military bases etc.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

True enough. But they do, like Governors, have veto power and so you'd need to account for that as yet another variable.

On the same site, you can also see those states with the highest property taxes happen to receive the least from the Federal Governments and just happen to correlate with the Blue/Red segmentation . So I guess you could make the case those Blue leaning states would be better off lowering the property taxes to get more money returned from the feds? Kind of like "**** it", expand Medicaid and let the feds pay for it.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-wit...1585/#red-blue

I'm not siding with any political view here...

Monk

iTrader: (3)

From the same site:
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-mos...vernment/2700/
This actually shows the number of federal employees by state.


<div style="width:556px;font-size:12px;color:#888;">Source: <a href="https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/">WalletHub</a></div>

Edit: Damnit. I was trying to show the graphic of the states in different shades of blue.


To be clear, I don't really have a side to take here because I honestly don't care all that much.
I like my state because the government has very little to say about the things I like to do.
Some red states are takers, and some are not. Same story for blue states. Some obviously skew the average substantially.
New Mexico is #50.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

Same link I posted 3 posts above you.

EDIT: Oh, now I see your comment.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I'd posit that there's a tremendous emotional disconnect between being dependent upon federal assistance and "liking big government."

To some voters, for instance, the legality of owning many firearms might well bear no obvious connection to receiving a green-and-yellow check in the mail every two weeks.

And this is a deliberately extreme example. In reality, such scenarios tend to be much more nuanced and subtle.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

Well supposedly, that is one of the 4 metrics used to determine the ranking. So it comes down to if you agree, or not, with the metrics and how relevant they are to the overall outcome.

From the website;

Just how pronounced is this disparity, and to what extent does it alter our perception of state and local tax rates around the country? WalletHub sought to answer those questions by comparing the 50 states in terms of four key metrics.