- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 93,838
- Reaction score
- 68,929
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
There is government but there is no coercion.
How do you get that payment?
Did you forget what libertarians stand for?
Is this another of those "you're not a real libertarian" things? Those are retarded.
A tort is either a voluntary action or a negligent action by the tortfeasor, either way it an obligation they incurred without coercion.
So when this lady sued McDonald's, McDonald's had no need to show up or recognize the verdict or make payment? If not, how are those enforced?
It's not like we're talking about taxes or some sort of government theft. This is one person making a victim of another person, and the victim getting redress. The government is only there are a referee. The courts should be the libertarian's preferred branch of government.
It's all enforced through the government's big guns. Otherwise the rulings would be meaningless and the loser wouldn't need to pay anything.
Straw man. McDonalds caused exactly as much damages as the award she got. Also false, it was a 600k settlement.
It was later taken down. Plus that question wasn't tied into the McDonald's argument. I was asking you a question. If I cause you 1000 dollars in damages, can you justify 100 million dollar award?
The punitive damages in Leibeck were reduced by the judge to a more reasonable amount than the original jury award. Get your facts straight before you get on your high horse.
No ****. I already knew that. Before you try to use your Madam Cleo powers, maybe you should figure out what is being talked about before opening your pie hole. The original reward was not logical nor was it warranted, which is why they did later reverse it. But the lack of reason and emotional response I was talking to wasn't that. It's the original roll. Before you want to sit there and sound off like a big man I suggest YOU get your facts straight. You seem to have no ability of clairvoyance and you suck at assumption.
What are you talking about? The lawsuit got McDonald's to change their coffee lids from those flimsy white things to those heavy-duty ones with big warnings that you see today. That is a market response if ever I saw one.
That was artificially produced through the courts. It wasn't a response to the market. The market wouldn't respond because the problem was such a low frequency as to be lost in the noise. It had to be amplified BEFORE the market would respond. Which is why they didn't change the temperature of the coffee till after the ruling. Jesus tap dancing christ on a pogo stick.
No, we haven't. The system is fine, it has been for a thousand years. Stop tampering with it. The people who are being unreasonable are quixotic tort reformers like yourself, tilting at windmills, attacking an issue that you don't really understand.
I haven't tampered with anything, try to be a bit honest. Reason and logic are leaving the system with instead engineered juries who respond emotionally. I understand the issue well, again your Madam Cleo powers fail you. I've argued it a lot. And my point hasn't been to end these sorts of lawsuits, or disallow it. But rather that punishment should always fit the crime and in cases seeking monetary reimbursement it should reflect the reality of the system. Not some judgment initially based because the jurors got emotional and viewed some "evil corporation" as "needing a lesson".