In a loser-pays situation, the lawyers could decide whether they thought you were going to win, and represent you knowing that the hospital would have to pay their fees after you win.
How well did the current system work for you?
...when I tried to file a malpractice suit I discovered that I flat out didn't have the money to even file...
You can't fault someone for what their experience tells them...
It's not really relevant whether you fault someone or not. If you need to act against a person (put them in jail, fight them, etc.) it's a need based on the outcome you want to achieve, not about whether you "fault them".
This comes up in all the discussions about criminal behavior. "Did he kill the people because he had a motive, or was he insane?" I don't really think it matters. The goal ought to be keeping him from repeating it. I'd even go so far as to let obviously guilty guys go free if they weren't at all likely to cause a problem in the future. Meanwhile, some other guy is insane so it wasn't his fault, but he needs to be locked up to keep him from doing it again (even though it won't be his fault the next time either).
Decision-making that's not based on accomplishing desirable outcomes and avoiding undesirable ones is bad decision-making.
Back on topic: Rioters mostly riot because it's a fun game to play. Societies ought to make sure it's clear that the fun isn't worth the consequences.
I doubt that most people think you can "go postal" only in a post office, or at work.
"At work" was the original context though, and the original poster was trying to say that working is better in socialist countries and he knows it because no one ever goes postal there.
I don't know if "driven" is the right word to use, but I think when people do bad things, it tends to be because they find themselves in a position where it seems like the best option for them.
Precisely. In other words, people do things because they want to. Why did that guy do that thing? Because he wanted to.
Consider the bad things you've done in your life, and tell me that you didn't have an entirely logical rationalization for them.
Rationalizations and justifications are irrelevant. You did it because you wanted to and because you could. No rationalization or justification is necessary to do a thing -- maybe it makes you feel better, but it offers you no additional capabilities.
It always bugs me. "Was [ some action that happened ] justified?" Um, who cares?
No matter what I declare myself to be, I am not it unless it is recognized. The governmnet is the official sanctioning body
You're basically saying that, if there were no government, there would be no marriage. It's silly.
Marriage existed before there were governments, it exists in places with no controlling government (i.e. international waters), and married folks are still married when a government falls and is replaced by a new government.
Did it wither away because it was inefficient and inferior?
The fact that the Soviets are gone and we're still here, stronger than ever, is a pretty clear (though not 100% conclusive) indication that the Soviets were inferior.
It's odd that in the land of the free, often we need a license for this and a permit for that and so on.
These restrictions are put in place so the "in" group (the group that gets licensed) doesn't have to compete for jobs with the unlicensed "out" group. The more licenses and permits you need to do a job, the fewer people you have to bid against and the higher your pay.
It's bad. Less work is available because the jobs cost more. Less gets done, there are fewer jobs, and fewer employers and customers. Overall, the guy with the license benefits unjustly at the expense of everyone else.
Barbers in my state have to get licensed. Because, well, think of the horrors that could occur otherwise.
As opposed to the US's murderous, oppressive grip on third world countries generally and attempts at foisting their cheerful utopia on the rest of the world.
That's a strange way to say "winning the cold war". I'm glad the US won. Are you?
Uh, no. That's illegal. Bigamy is a crime in every state.
You don't seem to get it. Maybe if I pronounce you the husband to a box of corn flakes, you'll understand. There's nothing that keeps you from considering yourself married to whoever or whatever you want.
Marriage licenses are granted by the government to individuals on a non-descriminatory basis to enter into marriage as the citizens of a state wish.
They don't constrain what you call a marriage, and you don't constrain what they call a marriage (but you get a vote on the latter).
Huh? So, recognizing some and not others is not a government intrusion?
Not any more than being involved in the first place.
I'll make you a deal: I'll support the government getting out of marriages if the government also gets out of education. What do you think?
Yes you can. Go nuts. Marry whoever or whatever you want, as many times as you want. Perform the ceremony yourself, go to a church, or have your parrot officiate. No one cares.
The citizens of a state have no obligation to recognize marriages of any kind.
Have you never seen the films of early attempts at heavier-than-air flight?
You can engineer an aircraft.
City planning like this is about trying to engineer human behavior. Engineering human behavior can't be done without hurting people, so it shouldn't be tried no matter how smart you think you are.
(Exceptions are wars and prisons and other similar situations where you decide that you'll hurt the people if you have to because you have a more important, overriding responsibility.)
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a link to one of them. What do I get for that?
You know what's causing all these dupes?
Hyperthreading.
No comments by the "I hate patents" crowd? Nothing from the "there's no such thing as IP" kids? Hello? I know you're out there.
Read the article. Maybe you'll decide your views on patents and IP need some rethinking.
And no, the answer isn't that you should personally decide who gets a patent and who doesn't.
If you think so, please buy me a hybrid car.
Thank you.
I hear we're all going to die in a Flu Pandemic anyway.
In a loser-pays situation, the lawyers could decide whether they thought you were going to win, and represent you knowing that the hospital would have to pay their fees after you win.
...when I tried to file a malpractice suit I discovered that I flat out didn't have the money to even file...
How well did the current system work for you?
Not well.
That's a long post.
But I can't find where you're saying that everything these two guys said was true.
I remember hearing about this case. My local newspaper had an editorial that was basically cheering for the guys who libeled McDonalds.
That was when I decided that, if they care that little about the truth, I didn't really need to read that newspaper any more.
This case shows the merit of the loser pays rule.
It's the only way civil court proceedings can be made even remotely fair -- instead of the extortion/lottery they are in the US right now.
Yeah, I more or less agree with you.
One minor thing:
You can't fault someone for what their experience tells them...
It's not really relevant whether you fault someone or not. If you need to act against a person (put them in jail, fight them, etc.) it's a need based on the outcome you want to achieve, not about whether you "fault them".
This comes up in all the discussions about criminal behavior. "Did he kill the people because he had a motive, or was he insane?" I don't really think it matters. The goal ought to be keeping him from repeating it. I'd even go so far as to let obviously guilty guys go free if they weren't at all likely to cause a problem in the future. Meanwhile, some other guy is insane so it wasn't his fault, but he needs to be locked up to keep him from doing it again (even though it won't be his fault the next time either).
Decision-making that's not based on accomplishing desirable outcomes and avoiding undesirable ones is bad decision-making.
Back on topic: Rioters mostly riot because it's a fun game to play. Societies ought to make sure it's clear that the fun isn't worth the consequences.
I doubt that most people think you can "go postal" only in a post office, or at work.
"At work" was the original context though, and the original poster was trying to say that working is better in socialist countries and he knows it because no one ever goes postal there.
I don't know if "driven" is the right word to use, but I think when people do bad things, it tends to be because they find themselves in a position where it seems like the best option for them.
Precisely. In other words, people do things because they want to. Why did that guy do that thing? Because he wanted to.
Consider the bad things you've done in your life, and tell me that you didn't have an entirely logical rationalization for them.
Rationalizations and justifications are irrelevant. You did it because you wanted to and because you could. No rationalization or justification is necessary to do a thing -- maybe it makes you feel better, but it offers you no additional capabilities.
It always bugs me. "Was [ some action that happened ] justified?" Um, who cares?
Kids are students at schools, they are not employees.
May I also point out noone ever goes 'postal' in Europe
Can you find a recent news article where this happened in North America?
The whole "postal" thing was a very, very few people a long time ago.
No matter what I declare myself to be, I am not it unless it is recognized. The governmnet is the official sanctioning body
You're basically saying that, if there were no government, there would be no marriage. It's silly.
Marriage existed before there were governments, it exists in places with no controlling government (i.e. international waters), and married folks are still married when a government falls and is replaced by a new government.
USA = Good Guys.
All others = Bad guys
More practically:
USA = our side
All opponents = enemy
Preferred winner: our side (USA)
Preferred loser: enemy
Did it wither away because it was inefficient and inferior?
The fact that the Soviets are gone and we're still here, stronger than ever, is a pretty clear (though not 100% conclusive) indication that the Soviets were inferior.
That's why you play the game.
It's odd that in the land of the free, often we need a license for this and a permit for that and so on.
These restrictions are put in place so the "in" group (the group that gets licensed) doesn't have to compete for jobs with the unlicensed "out" group. The more licenses and permits you need to do a job, the fewer people you have to bid against and the higher your pay.
It's bad. Less work is available because the jobs cost more. Less gets done, there are fewer jobs, and fewer employers and customers. Overall, the guy with the license benefits unjustly at the expense of everyone else.
Barbers in my state have to get licensed. Because, well, think of the horrors that could occur otherwise.
See, now, your tone suggests that you're making rhetorical point that presupposing that everyone is glad the Soviets lost the Cold War conflict.
No, I know a lot of people wish the Soviets had won. It would be nice if they'd just tell the truth and be up front about it.
As opposed to the US's murderous, oppressive grip on third world countries generally and attempts at foisting their cheerful utopia on the rest of the world.
That's a strange way to say "winning the cold war". I'm glad the US won. Are you?
Uh, no. That's illegal. Bigamy is a crime in every state.
You don't seem to get it. Maybe if I pronounce you the husband to a box of corn flakes, you'll understand. There's nothing that keeps you from considering yourself married to whoever or whatever you want.
Marriage licenses are granted by the government to individuals on a non-descriminatory basis to enter into marriage as the citizens of a state wish.
They don't constrain what you call a marriage, and you don't constrain what they call a marriage (but you get a vote on the latter).
Huh? So, recognizing some and not others is not a government intrusion?
Not any more than being involved in the first place.
I'll make you a deal: I'll support the government getting out of marriages if the government also gets out of education. What do you think?
I, as a male, can not marry a male.
Yes you can. Go nuts. Marry whoever or whatever you want, as many times as you want. Perform the ceremony yourself, go to a church, or have your parrot officiate. No one cares.
The citizens of a state have no obligation to recognize marriages of any kind.
No reason astrology can't be merged with astronomy either.
Don't do it! It's bad mojo.
Have you never seen the films of early attempts at heavier-than-air flight?
You can engineer an aircraft.
City planning like this is about trying to engineer human behavior. Engineering human behavior can't be done without hurting people, so it shouldn't be tried no matter how smart you think you are.
(Exceptions are wars and prisons and other similar situations where you decide that you'll hurt the people if you have to because you have a more important, overriding responsibility.)
As opposed to the conservatives? They tell you who you can marry
No they don't.
, what you can smoke,
I agree. They should mind their own business on this one.
as well as being involved in every single thing you list as well.
No. Conservatives are for a smaller government with less influence on your life.