It's not more coercive than putting a criminal in prison. The perpetrator of a tort or a crime has given up their rights. You need to get past your superficial understanding of libertarianism and think deeply on the subject.
It takes no government force to put and keep people in jail? Left to their own, criminals would stay in prison? Or in reality, does it require outside force? Come on, be honest for once.
Again, your Madam Cleo sucks, you know not what I know or what I have studied in understanding my personal political philosophies.
Stop betraying libertarian principles and I will stop calling you out on it. Also, if you knew anyone with special needs, you might choose your language a bit more carefully. Grow up.
So you were engaged in the retarded mantra of "you're not a real libertarian". K, well if that's the level you're arguing at, you may perchance want to heed your own "grow up" advice".
If they hadn't committed the tort, they wouldn't have had to answer for it.
That doesn't answer the question. How is it enforced?
Its enforce by government, but it isn't coercive. At least, not illegitimately so; the tortfeasor has given up their rights when they committed the tort. The jury is the mechanism that determines facts. This is our legal system. Cope.
I'm not arguing against the system we have in place, I merely recognize government force where government force is.
co·erce
[koh-urs] Show IPA
verb (used with object), -erced, -erc·ing.
1.
to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document.
2.
to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience.
3.
to dominate or control, especially by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.: The state is based on successfully coercing the individual.
That's the definition of coercive. If you claim something is not coercive, you are claiming that in the natural state free from force they would have carried out the action. But it requires force, government force in this case, i.e. coercion to ensure that the system is upheld and punishment rightfully paid in a proper time frame. That's a force. There are not many things in this world which are free from force.
You hypothetical has no basis in reality.
It's a hypothetical. But can you answer it. How about 1000 in real damages giving a 280,000 reward; is that a bit more reasonable? Can you now answer the question?
The cards don't lie. You have demonstrated that you simply haven't got an adequate command of tort law concepts to discuss it intelligently. And yet you want to dictate how tort law should work
No, I have merely demonstrated that I have a different opinion on the rationality and reason of the current court system than you. From there you have launched into attacks calling me stupid on the subject and questioning my political beliefs and values.
The fact that the judge can reduce unreasonable punitive awards is the safeguard against your Chicken Little fears of juries running amok. No need to take broad, legislative action like you're advocating.
OK Cleo. Care to point out where I endorsed legislative action? I actually really want you to do this. You've run your mouth, said what it is I believe and what I want. So now it's time to back it up. Can you? Or is this just another one of your assumptions run amuck?
The market realized that they couldn't get away with half-assing their coffee lids because they would be held liable for the harm that results from said halfassed lids. That's the market, coupled with a healthy dose of personal responsibility, at work.
So it's not a market correction then is it? No, it needed intervention from the courts in this case to take care of it. Not necessarily a bad thing; never said it was. I said it wasn't a market correction.
Lordamercy. You clearly don't understand the role of the legal system if you think emotion shouldn't play a part.
It shouldn't. All that is at stake is the rights and liberties of the individual and those must be weighed cold and logically.
Emotion is a huge part of justice.
Not justice. Justice is a theory of interactions between government or authority and the people on the whole to produce desired effects agreed upon by the populace at large.
Theory of Justice, fundamental libertarian reading.
This isn't planet Vulcan. It's not all logic and reason. Juries are finders of fact in our system, and a thousand years of common law tradition have validated their important counterbalance to the cold, dispassionate logic of the judge. The jury is there precisely to be what they are.
The jury is there to weigh evidence and come to conclusions. Emotional reaction distracts from logical thought and can lead to false conclusions and outrageous awards which later must go to the "cold, dispassionate logic of the judge" to be set right. Correct? That's how it happened here with McDonald's yes?
I in fact never stated that McDonald's was in the clear, nor that I would have absolved them of wrong doing. I merely stated that the initial award was unjustifiable and based off of emotional reaction from the jury.
