James Newtons Massmind wrote:
>> > I will never sue
>> > anyone anyway: I'll be damned if I'll put money in a
>> lawyers pocket;
>> > apologies to the few good lawyers who I know frequent this list.
>>
>> Never say never. ;) With all its shortcomings, the legal
>> system does have its uses.
>
> Compared to the value of an education in con artistry, the value of the
> legal system is minimal. I would much rather learn another way that I can 
> be
> tricked (and then learn how to stop that) than I would be paid back for
> being stupid enough to have been tricked in the first place. Or should I 
> say
> "uneducated" to make it easier to swallow?
>
> The current system, with consumer protections, malpractice and lawsuits
> rewards idiots for being dumb. The world should be based on buyer beware,
> know your vendor, and build relationships. A society of sheep must begat a
> leadership of wolves and that is what it has done.
>
> Indian gaming and the lottery do the country a great service by separating
> fools from their money. Crap products and scams from no-name manufacturers
> could be doing the same service and SHOULD be, not only allowed to, but
> encouraged by all responsible adults. Yah sure, go ahead and buy that 
> widget
> from flibiknight.com at 1/10 what I charge. Let me know if you have enough
> money left afterward to pay my rate and buy my reputation.
>
> Why is my inbox filled with spam from drug vendors advertising meds at
> 1/10th the price? Because the real drugs are subject to lawsuits and so 
> must
> be priced to build that in, and because the public assumes the product is
> good no matter the source.
>
> Same for doctors in Mexico or charlatans or others who profess to cure
> illness for rock bottom prices. They exist because the real doctors must 
> pay
> the "stupid patient tax" imposed by malpractice insurance and because the
> patients do not take the time to get to know, and trust, (or switch) their
> doctors. Due to the cost, they can't afford to.
>
> If the doctors had to actually compete and develop reputations, earn
> patients by word of mouth and stand on their record, and the shady ones
> could no longer depend on the insurance to protect them... there would be 
> a
> difference.
>
> Insurance and lawsuits are wrong. Period. They may help an individual, but
> they damage the group.

I must respectfully disagree. Both the legal system and insurance are 
beneficial to the group, when implemented properly.

I believe we've touched on the subject of "wolves" in a lawless society. 
Dishonest crooks and ruthless sadists are the only people who benefit from 
anarchy. Even if we talk just about consumer protection (forgetting about 
murder, rape, and robbery for a moment) society as a whole suffers, because 
lack of consumer protection increases the cost of each transaction, 
translating into higher cost for the buyer, and lost sales for the seller.

Insurance has a sound statistical basis. It's a way to manage risk -- a loss 
that is devastating to an individual, can be easily bourne by the group.

Vitaliy 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist