7 ms·

> the frictions (e.g legal fees, time, access) prevent small everyday externalities from being reasonably addressable Small infractions by small operators, per

> the frictions (e.g legal fees, time, access) prevent small everyday externalities from being reasonably addressable Small infractions by small operators, perhaps so. Small infractions by big operators, hell no. Thanks to class action, civil suits are perpetual hearburn & lost sleep for them. There's always a batch of aggressive trial lawyers ready to take the case on contingency, and even if the original plaintiff's damages are very small, it still adds up to big money when you include payouts to the rest of the class, & of course, punitive damages--which can exceed the damages by orders of magnitude. > It also would rely on a judiciary that can't be bought Buying off judges and juries is a costlier & dangerously more sensitive task than promising a comfy board position to an agency head over drinks and a meal at a restaurant in DC. > It hasn't failed. The microplastics in our bloodstreams and the glyphosate in our cheerios say otherwise.

hackerlight 4y ago
> Small infractions by big operators, hell no Hell yes. The large majority of infractions, perpetrated by both small and large companies, are infeasible to address via courts, for a multitude of reasons. Either the frictions exceed the benefit to a class action, or the cost is too diffuse. Consider global warming. In a torts system, how can I hold an industrial farm or a car manufacturer to account for the role they're playing? You can't, because the cost is too diffuse. Consider social media. In a torts system, how can I hold a social media company to account for the role they play in an uptick of stochastic terrorism? You can't, because the cost is too diffuse and the burden of proof makes it difficult to draw causal links in single cases. Consider fast food. In a torts system, how can you address the downstream negative externalities of obesity on society by mass producing unhealthy, unhappy people, which has downstream impacts on the polity, health system, and so on? You can't. Centralized regulation is the only pragmatic solution to certain problems. Besides, even if all large-scale infractions were addressable (they're not, as the above examples show), it's still a massive hole in your system to simply allow all small-scale infractions to persist. > The microplastics in our bloodstreams and the glyphosate in our cheerios say otherwise. This is the binary bias. Failure isn't a binary switch. We've had a degree of good success (leaded petrol, ozone layer) and a degree of failure (microplastics, carbon pollution). You also unjustifiably blame all failures on the administrative system, which conveniently leaves out that we actually do also have a torts system in place now. Our system is mixed. So, both your hated system and your desired system are simultaneously failing, but you post hoc attribute all failures to the former. > Buying off judges and juries is a costlier & dangerously more sensitive Even if I accepted that bribing a judge is riskier than bribing an agency head, you still have no good solution to buying off lawmakers under a torts-only system, or to costs imposed by operators that aren't pragmatically addressable in a court.
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
  This started shifting in like 1990, with the crazy self-inflicted bitchvictimization of McDonalds's acting so pathetic because they scalded a woman causing 3rd degree burns. Ended up killing her because she couldnd't stay interested in life after all the humiliation from every angle. Died in part of her injuries. Poor little McDonalds' guilty as shit gets its poor account SUED (they always like ejaculated that word, way too much emphasis, highest accusativity) a 78 old lady who did literally nothing wrong. Corporate America also started spreading rumors of lawsuits like a man shooting a burglar and he falls down the stairs, sues for bad stairs. In Latin America! There were TV shows about "stupid lawsuits"! And of course highly interested in juries getting losing money by being juries, and resisting the courts catch up with inflation. Yeah.

hackerlight 4y ago

> Small infractions by big operators, hell no Hell yes. The large majority of infractions, perpetrated by both small and large companies, are infeasible to address via courts, for a multitude of reasons. Either the frictions exceed the benefit to a class action, or the cost is too diffuse. Consider global warming. In a torts system, how can I hold an industrial farm or a car manufacturer to account for the role they're playing? You can't, because the cost is too diffuse. Consider social media. In a torts system, how can I hold a social media company to account for the role they play in an uptick of stochastic terrorism? You can't, because the cost is too diffuse and the burden of proof makes it difficult to draw causal links in single cases. Consider fast food. In a torts system, how can you address the downstream negative externalities of obesity on society by mass producing unhealthy, unhappy people, which has downstream impacts on the polity, health system, and so on? You can't. Centralized regulation is the only pragmatic solution to certain problems. Besides, even if all large-scale infractions were addressable (they're not, as the above examples show), it's still a massive hole in your system to simply allow all small-scale infractions to persist. > The microplastics in our bloodstreams and the glyphosate in our cheerios say otherwise. This is the binary bias. Failure isn't a binary switch. We've had a degree of good success (leaded petrol, ozone layer) and a degree of failure (microplastics, carbon pollution). You also unjustifiably blame all failures on the administrative system, which conveniently leaves out that we actually do also have a torts system in place now. Our system is mixed. So, both your hated system and your desired system are simultaneously failing, but you post hoc attribute all failures to the former. > Buying off judges and juries is a costlier & dangerously more sensitive Even if I accepted that bribing a judge is riskier than bribing an agency head, you still have no good solution to buying off lawmakers under a torts-only system, or to costs imposed by operators that aren't pragmatically addressable in a court.

daniel-cussen 4y ago
This started shifting in like 1990, with the crazy self-inflicted bitchvictimization of McDonalds's acting so pathetic because they scalded a woman causing 3rd degree burns. Ended up killing her because she couldnd't stay interested in life after all the humiliation from every angle. Died in part of her injuries. Poor little McDonalds' guilty as shit gets its poor account SUED (they always like ejaculated that word, way too much emphasis, highest accusativity) a 78 old lady who did literally nothing wrong. Corporate America also started spreading rumors of lawsuits like a man shooting a burglar and he falls down the stairs, sues for bad stairs. In Latin America! There were TV shows about "stupid lawsuits"! And of course highly interested in juries getting losing money by being juries, and resisting the courts catch up with inflation. Yeah.