> Please think before you believe -- let alone circulate -- the
> half-truths and lies of the right.
Actually, it did cross my mind that some of those "cases" seem a bit too improbable (albeit one can never be sure, as human stupidity knows no bounds) - but I decided to post it anyway to spark a bit of the debate on the subject, and the larger issue its represents.
I am well aware of the right's efforts at "tort reform," however, I happen to believe that the "people's right to sue corporations" that you mention is an example of one of the most reactionary tendencies in the US system, even though it may send good vibes to populist-minded lefties. Specifically, they represent:
- the abrogation of government enforcement of public safety standards in favor of individual claims, subject to whims of courts and juries; - privatization of collective assets, as the "punitive damages" awarded to individuals (rather than to public good organizations as it is the case in Europe) are passed on the public in the form of higher prices or taxes; - Robin-Hood populism that seeks to extort money from deep pockets instead of reforming the system that produces inequalities; - celebrity populism, as the jury verdicts tend to be affected by the popularity and sex appeal of plaintiffs and defendants rather than consideration of public good.
One thing that I learned from my brief encounter with the Labor Party (remember them?) is to avoid a knee-jerk support of one party platform, and instead support candidates or positions that are most beneficial to working class interests, regardless of their party affiliation. This meant for them the possibility of supporting Repug candidates if they seemed more labor-friendly. The tort reform seems to be one of such issues. Of course, the devil is in the details. The reform can either further abrogate corporate responsibility if implemented by the right's lobbyist, or strengthen that responsibility if implemented by the left. The point is, however, that the only voice for the reform is the one from the right, whereas the left neither sees not hears any evil. So the chances are that the right will prevail on this issue again.
That in my view represents a much broader problem which for the lack of a better term I call the "Robin Hood" approach of solving social problems, be it enforcement of safety standards, occupational safety, or health care benefits. Earlier on this list, Nathan voiced a support for the "Maryland approach" to health care by targeting individual and unpopular corporations, like Wal-Mart, and even preferred it to a single payer solutions, which he claimed is supported by the right. Others, including you, seemed to agree. I found that rather disturbing , but then when I thought about I realized that this is actually consistent with the positions that a big part of the US is taking on other social issues, not just health care, but also enforcement of rights and safety standards (hence the tort reform connection).
This kind of approach to social problems has little appeal to me. I do not think that Robin Hood populism of dipping into dip corporate pockets solves any systemic problems. On the contrary tends to make them more popularly accepted by "tying" the interests of the populations to the fortuned of "deep pockets" and an illusion of "casino justice" - "If I go after deep pockets and can win big, so the system works."
Wojtek