hell in a handbasket
For the last hundred years or so, perspective in the United States has been shifting from a focus on the rights of society to the rights of the individual. When society as a whole has perceived rights, each individual has a responsibility toward the community. Whenever the perceived rights of an individual surpass those of the community, anything bad that happens to a person is seen as cause for punishment. This leads to the current state of our judiciary system.
Lawsuits filed over spilling coffee on your own lap make for amusing warning labels. Other cases have more drastic results. Businesses simply stop offering services because they are seen as too much of a lawsuit risk. Chuck E. Cheese and McDonald's do away with ball pits because of the risk of disease or injury. Companies are forced to make business decisions simply to avoid the lawsuits.
People see the state of the system and begin to abuse it. Because they have no concern for "the man", they seek any opportunity for personal gain, even at the expense of another individual or the bulk of society.
Lobbyists and interest groups gain an enormous amount of power--much more than they should have in a representative democracy. Judicial legislation occurs: the rights of a small subset of the country are allowed to dictate laws for the whole of society. Defendants who are obviously guilty of heinous crimes are allowed to get off on a technicality because of individual rights violations. Prisoners in jail feel that they have the right to cable TV, luxurious accommodations, and sex-change operations.
Currently, the community is seen as having rights toward each individual rather than the inverse. A logical extension of this mindset seems to be that anything bad that happens to a person is someone else's fault. It's an immature perspective which is largely caused by a lack of concern for society in general. When there is someone else to blame, the individual doesn't take responsibility for his actions, which only leads to an immature society. Each member is a toddler, unwilling share his toys with anyone else. The good of the whole is lost in each individual's scramble to grab more for himself.
We've got the handbasket packed. If things don't change, it's pretty obvious where society's headed.
Comments
as a responsible member of society, i am offended at this libel. i'm going to sue you for all you're worth! :p
i'm worth negative... i'll take your payment in installments.
the only way to get there faster is to load the basket into a canon and fire away! what are we waiting for? the reasonable few to relinquish their perspective, renounce their responsibility and voice as citizens, give in to the "squeaky wheel," and allow the minority to rule their lives with impunity. they lose a few more every day, so it shouldn't be long now until we feel ourselves being shot at high speed towards the warmest place imaginable. don't forget to pack some water.
While I agree that there are frivolous lawsuits out there, and, unfortunately, we don't have a perfect judicial system, I still must completely disagree with your general thesis.
The judicial system of old was based completely on a classically liberal, laissez-faire, "right to contract" view of economics, which benefitted the wealthy capitalist but screwed over the vast majority of our society that is the middle and lower classes. Around the 1930s or so, a school of thought known as "legal realism" took root, which admitted to the policy considerations inherent in any judicial decision, and people started looking more at the incentives created by the collective mass of common law. Eventually, a school referred to as "law and economics" began to take root, and along with it came the upsurge of the negligence standard, and new strictures on the application of strict liability (between two innocent parties, the actor is liable). General premise of economic analysis of law - society is better off when costs are limited. Who can act to minimize costs to society? If an individual is hurt, the economic repercussions extend beyond the individual - who is forced to pay (who has the right to be protected or the privilege to act) creates what's known as an "ex ante incentive" - if you pollute, and someone gets sick, and you're not held liable, society is giving you carte blanche to continue polluting. While you may be saving money, the long terms costs to society will skyrocket. Plus, the common law precedent allows other companies to pollute in the same way, creating even greater drains on society. So, while it may look like we're protecting the individual, we're actually protecting society.
I can go on further about this, but this is already a ridiculously long comment. :)
Okay, I do have to mention that I don't completely agree with law & econ theory in that it can lead to some pretty perverse consequences. For instance, the value of a human life is calculated based on lost income, which literally means that a poor person's life is worth less than a rich person's. Which is pretty effed up. The problem is, to step outside that framework requires decision making based solely on a balancing of interests and assignations of rights, and there are always competing rights. The judge can then do whatever he/she wants. If they only look at the case ex post (what seems fair in this instance) with no eye to the precedent he/she's setting, the negative incentivization I mentioned before kicks in.
Sorry about the rant, I do this all day.
Post new comment