WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-26 15:58:43 +0000

[quote]A Maximum wage deters incentive for increased productivity, efficiency and worker satisfaction (ie you can only make so much $$$ no matter how hard you work)in a capitalist system.[/quote] If I am rear ended in an accident and sue for 8 Kajillion dollars, with no obvious injury other than irreparable psychological damage and there arent limits to how much I would be rewarded, I have more of an incentive to shift all responsibility for myself away and the sky's the limit to how much money I can receive from the people I choose to blame...No Sir, I don't like it! _______________________________ If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-26 16:28:21 +0000

So capitalism is good, except for lawyers?

Posted by tgl on 2004-10-26 17:50:34 +0000

What are juries giving out these days for psychological damages? How often do these awards get moderated by a judge? The legal system gives validity to the economic system. In fact, the idea of a corporation is entirely constructed within the legal system. By imposing limit, it follows that we are meddling with the system. Not very laisez faire?

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-26 17:57:31 +0000

_How am I earning anything if I am leeching my money from award fees? ______________________________ If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-26 18:00:59 +0000

You're earning millions as a lawyer...

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-26 18:02:03 +0000

That's a good point. I hadn't thought about it that way. I spose from a Laisez Faire standpoint I would have to just hold my nose and turn a blind eye to the ambulance chasers.... I still have no love for people that tie courts up with bullshit though... _______________________________ If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black

Posted by tgl on 2004-10-26 18:05:31 +0000

I see, the "law" gets in the way of business. Anyone trying to redress wrongs through the legal system has it backwards. They should be creating a business to take out the other business instead. What's the saying? Everyone despises lawyers until they need one. Some people get steamed that lawyers get paid, others get steamed that people have no voice in our corporate-driven culture. I'm sure there are plenty of greedy lawyers out there who make more money than they're worth, just like the greedy CEOs and board members who make more than they are worth. There are cheats in every system, what is the benefit from limiting the one system we have in this country that is a useful tool in exposing these cheats?

Posted by tgl on 2004-10-26 18:06:59 +0000

Would people stop tieing up the courts if they knew they could get no more than $20 million (or whatever the limit might be)? I'd say they'd still roll the dice.

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-26 18:15:02 +0000

Just got done fully reading that blog you posted tgl.... I like to count myself as the secular minded small government type of person who ends up voting republican. I dont see why it would be a better idea for me to vote for the Libertarian candidate that has no chance of winning. Bush, warts and all, is a better choice for smaller govt folk than Kerry is, any day of the week. ______________________________ If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-26 18:15:45 +0000

_that, also is a very good point :) ______________________________ If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black

Posted by tgl on 2004-10-26 18:32:38 +0000

I'm not advocating a Libertarian vote. I just see lot's of stuff from card carrying Republicans who aren't voting for Bush this time around. While you may be a minority in the rideside.net group, definitely, your not exactly a majority of intended Bush voters in the "secular minded small government" group either. I could be wrong on that... Experience shows that Bush as an advocate for small government has to be a leap of faith at this point. Kerry's not a small government type either, but having a (D) at the White House offsets the (R) of the legislature. That's a pretty sound & sane fiscal argument, I think. I liked the posting in question because it: a) agrees with my position on Bush's fiscal policies b) points out that tort reform might tbe the only thing of value that could come from a second term of Bush 43 Point b) is interesting in that maybe there is no difference in how Kerry and Bush would wage the GWOT. Even if Bush goes, we're still in Iraq, and it's unlikely it'll clear up overnight. Bush in power might make it harder for him to deploy troops into another adventure, e.g., would the country let him invade Iran right now?