Tamerlan IED - He didn't build that.

[Guest Derek L]

People sue the government and win all the time. What are you talking about?

And how many "win"? Or, when was the last time a Canadian level of Government lost a negligence lawsuit?

[The_Squid]

Milgard got millions. They settled before he had to sue, but they knew they would have lost.

So, clearly, the government can be sued and people do win when there is negligence involved.

Edited May 6, 2013 by The_Squid

[Guest Derek L]

Milgard got millions. They settled before he had to sue, but they knew they would have lost.

So, clearly, the government can be sued and people do win when there is negligence involved.

Where did I say it wasn't possible? As opposed to probable?

[The_Squid]

Where did I say it wasn't possible? As opposed to probable?

Where did I say it was probable? You inferred it never happens. It certainly does.

[Guest Derek L]

Where did I say it was probable? You inferred it never happens. It certainly does.

Where did I infer that? I'll repeat my above quote, slowly for you:

Where as in Canada, the avenues of recourse for the individual is next to nonexistent……..Case in point: Just vs. British Columbia……..An individual tried to sue the Provincial Government over negligence in upkeep of the highways after a family member was killed. The case went to both the Supreme Court of British Columbia and Canada, and both Courts rendered a decision that prevented Government from being liable for policy (or lack there of) decisions. People have successfully sued various levels of Government in Canada, but to a much lesser degree then is available to Americans.

Reading is fun

[ReeferMadness]

Are you expecting a mature response?

Clearly the family members of the deceased could attempt to sue the plant and/or the State government (over negligence), in effect allowing the individual to seek recourse against big bad corporations and the Government………

What part of the word "dead" don't you get? The victims aren't the relatives, they're the people who aren't here anymore. Maybe, some of the relatives will now be better off but there's no justice here. The right thing to do isn't to give dead people's relatives piles of cash, it's to prevent this kind of occurrence through proper planning, oversight and regulation.

[Guest Derek L]

What part of the word "dead" don't you get? The victims aren't the relatives, they're the people who aren't here anymore. Maybe, some of the relatives will now be better off but there's no justice here. The right thing to do isn't to give dead people's relatives piles of cash, it's to prevent this kind of occurrence through proper planning, oversight and regulation.

Two interesting points I’ve heard tonight, first the responsibility for ensuring compliance with proper handling and storage protocols of explosive materials in Texas is administered at the County level by the local fire department….Kind of ironic since 10 of the 14 dead were local firefighters. The other storey, I believe reported in the LA Times, is that said plant has been broken into numerous times over the years by thieves seeking the raw materials used in producing crystal meth………

Maybe it will shake out the cause of the fire and ensuing explosion was not the fault of the company itself…..

[guyser]

I highly doubt this explosion will change the manner in which business is conducted within Texas, as to the companies level of liability insurance, I don’t doubt they have very little, namely due in part to Texas commercial law and the required levels of insurance one needs to have to operate down there……oil refineries, trucking companies etc are just the same.

I would imagine that once this plays out, restrictions on minimums on liability cover will be placed in force.

Oil refineries are quite different and depending on size would need $10M and numerous other liability coverage, from pollution to CGL to hazardous acts.

[Guest Derek L]

I would imagine that once this plays out, restrictions on minimums on liability cover will be placed in force.

Oil refineries are quite different and depending on size would need $10M and numerous other liability coverage, from pollution to CGL to hazardous acts.

But, in free market, anti guberment Texas, whoever proposed such minimums would likely be labelled a Jesus hating commie and ran out of town……..

As to Oil refineries, the Texas City explosion over 60 years ago, brought about next to zero changes in terms of restrictions and regulations, well demonstrating industrial accidents of this scope are far and few between, and from a fiscal point of view, it’s in the interest of such companies to keep it as such…….A very self-serving testament to Libertarian ethos……..one could expand that to include a public perspective, borrowing from Friedman’s term “community effects” and offer that if one doesn’t wish the possibility of such rare accidents potentially flattening their homes and ending their lives……..don’t buy or build a house next to one, and through legal recourse, devoid of all economic thought, prevent new ones from cropping up in “your backyard”…..

[Pliny]

I post an opinion about the growing inability to assign responsibility because of collective thinking and an argument ensues about the irresponsiblity of individuals and how irresponsibility and stupid need regulation. Why don't we bring up responsible and informed generations. The irresponsible will then be glaringly obvious. Some of what is discussed is<br />irresponsibility at the level of criminal negligence.<br /><br />A fertilizer plant blows up, a building falls down. There may be criminal negligence involved in both and no one is suggesting criminal negligence is OK. There may be someone to assign blame to but that isn't about being responsible that is about being irresponsible. There are irresponsible and stupid people.<br /><br />If LA falls into the ocean are we going to then say that government should have regulated building there? Why don't they? Science has been telling us for decades that it is just a matter of time. Does it have to happen before government does something? Are the people that lose relatives and loved ones in the catastrophe going to sue the government for negligence? Is there enough insurance to cover the loss? I doubt it but people will live there anyway and take their chances.<br /><br />Life is a risk and irresponsibility and ignorance make it riskier. Responsible, educated individuals will be just that and life will not be as risky. Each individual has to do his part. A community exists because it is being created by its members no one needs to pay back to the community. They are the community. Some contribute more some less, some leave, some join and it evolves.<br /><br />In essence, the more government regulation, especially at the national level, the less responsible the individual has to be, he just has to follow the law, beyond that he has no responsibility and the riskier life is for all of us. The irresponsible are the reason we need government in the first place. They are the criminals and the ones that don't care or are too ignorant for the level of responsibility they have.<br /><br />Looking for someone to blame? I'm sure you will find there are not enough regulations.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

[kimmy]

A fertilizer plant blows up, a building falls down. There may be criminal negligence involved in both and no one is suggesting criminal negligence is OK.

Are you sure? Because that's what your argument seems to boil down to.

If there's no regulations, then there's no such thing as "criminal negligence".

If I liked to get drunk and play with my guns, I think any reasonable person would say I'm being irresponsible. But following your logic, if I'm drunk and playing with my guns and my neighbor gets hit with flying lead... serves 'em right. They're the ones being irresponsible-- if they'd man up and take responsibility for their own safety, they wouldn't be living next door to me in the first place.

We don't need regulations that say a girl shouldn't shoot her guns while she's tanked, we just need people to take responsibility for their own safety and not live near somebody who might do something like that.

A community exists because it is being created by its members no one needs to pay back to the community.

And the roads and schools and police and fire department all just appear by the Magic of Freedom, and nobody has to pay any taxes!

-k

[kimmy]

I post an opinion about the growing inability to assign responsibility because of collective thinking

And that's a dumb analysis, and your misuse of the "you didn't build that" speech was a dumb way to make a point.

While the Free Market Heroes and their sycophants like to present "you didn't build that" as if that was all he said, but everybody who bothered to actually learn the context of the comment understands that the message was "you didn't build that on your own."

Or as it was stated in

:

You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

Now... you want to apply this idea that we all helped the Tsarnaev brothers commit their attack on the Boston Marathon? Sure, if one fancied himself to be some kind of idiot, he could certainly make the same argument in regard to the attacks on the Boston Marathon or the World Trade Center. Sure, it's correct.

It happened on a public street that wouldn't exist without a society that chose to build it. It happened at a huge event that couldn't happen without a cooperative society. The brothers used materials they couldn't have build themselves, information they gained through the internet, education that was funded at least in part by US taxpayers.

We as a society do all this stuff- build streets, fund schools, manufacture goods for sale, provide almost unlimited access to information, create an environment where people can host and attend massive gatherings of people.

We as a society do all of that stuff, and much more. For the most part all of us are much the better for it. For the most part, people use all of those facilities for their own benefit and sometimes to the benefit of all of us as a whole. Sometimes, whether it be the Boston Marathon bombing or a car crash, those facilities are used in ways that cause harm.

We do those things anyway. If you're wondering whether we'd be better off if society didn't provide any of these facilities and let Rugged Individuals do everything for themselves, just remember: There's no Mogadishu Marathon. There's no Mogadishu Trade Center.

-k

[Pliny]

Are you sure? Because that's what your argument seems to boil down to.

Yes, I am sure. Your argument boils down to the right thinks criminal negligence is ok.

If there's no regulations, then there's no such thing as "criminal negligence".

Who is suggesting no regulations?

If I liked to get drunk and play with my guns, I think any reasonable person would say I'm being irresponsible. But following your logic, if I'm drunk and playing with my guns and my neighbor gets hit with flying lead... serves 'em right. They're the ones being irresponsible-- if they'd man up and take responsibility for their own safety, they wouldn't be living next door to me in the first place.

It is obvious you have not understood what I have said.

We don't need regulations that say a girl shouldn't shoot her guns while she's tanked, we just need people to take responsibility for their own safety and not live near somebody who might do something like that.And the roads and schools and police and fire department all just appear by the Magic of Freedom, and nobody has to pay any taxes!

People being responsible only for their own safety is completely irresponsible. Responsibility must include responsibility to others, the community, the nation, the world.

The captain on asinking ship makes sure everyone gets into the life rafts and then goes down with the ship. That's responsibility. You of course don't believe that responsibility means sacrificing anything. Somehow it means looking after only yourself.

[Pliny]

And that's a dumb analysis, and your misuse of the "you didn't build that" speech was a dumb way to make a point.

While the Free Market Heroes and their sycophants like to present "you didn't build that" as if that was all he said, but everybody who bothered to actually learn the context of the comment understands that the message was "you didn't build that on your own."

That discussion has already been had. Of course, Obama meant "you didn't build it on your own".

That's Why I said Tamerlan didn't build it. He obviously didn't build it on his own, he used someone else's design, a manufacturer built the pressure cooker, organizers crearted the Marathon to provide the venue but he is being held entirely responsible. Shouldn't it work the other way as well? Shouldn't a businessman be held entirely resposnible for building his business?

Or as it was stated in

:Now... you want to apply this idea that we all helped the Tsarnaev brothers commit their attack on the Boston Marathon? Sure, if one fancied himself to be some kind of idiot, he could certainly make the same argument in regard to the attacks on the Boston Marathon or the World Trade Center. Sure, it's correct.

It happened on a public street that wouldn't exist without a society that chose to build it. It happened at a huge event that couldn't happen without a cooperative society. The brothers used materials they couldn't have build themselves, information they gained through the internet, education that was funded at least in part by US taxpayers.

We as a society do all this stuff- build streets, fund schools, manufacture goods for sale, provide almost unlimited access to information, create an environment where people can host and attend massive gatherings of people.

We as a society do all of that stuff, and much more. For the most part all of us are much the better for it. For the most part, people use all of those facilities for their own benefit and sometimes to the benefit of all of us as a whole. Sometimes, whether it be the Boston Marathon bombing or a car crash, those facilities are used in ways that cause harm.

We do those things anyway. If you're wondering whether we'd be better off if society didn't provide any of these facilities and let Rugged Individuals do everything for themselves, just remember: There's no Mogadishu Marathon. There's no Mogadishu Trade Center.

-k

There you are with the Ayn Rand rugged individual again. I know full well that no man is an island unto himself and we all contribute to the building of a society through mutual co-operation and harmonious interaction so it is expected we do that and our contribution to the community is rewarded in kind, good or bad.

Should it be expected that regulations exist to tell us to work harmoniously and co-operatively, is that really necessary? Or should laws reflect what we have learned is destructive to that concept? Negligence can result in damage to others and is deemed criminal. There is a law. Do we need further legislation? Do we need to disassemble Los Angeles and move it to a safer region or will people live there and suffer the consequences? They will. Of course, sliding into the Ocean is an act of nature and no one can be held accountable for negligence unless science and politicians know the date and are keeping it a secret.

Most of us will, if we are aware of the consequences of our actions, not seek to damage others purposely. We seek mutual benefit through co-operation.

You seem to believe that everyone in a capitalist world exists to greedily seek personal profit. I believe that is the concept being circulated in our Universities as well, not just socially but it is being taught in Business Administration. I believe that when a business is run out of the accountants office it can tend to become that and don't deny that some businesses exist to greedily seek personal profit. That is a perception that I would like to see changed because business should be about benefit to all of society.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Pliny

[Pliny]

.And the roads and schools and police and fire department all just appear by the Magic of Freedom, and nobody has to pay any taxes!

-k

Are the police and fire departments paid? Do we need an intermediary to get roads and schools built? You are not thinking of responsiblity but in terms of irresponsiblity. You think that the individual is irresponsible and will not see that roads are built or schools and police and fire halls will not exist.

I am not in any way suggesting anarchy but I will say that I think the size of government is directly proportional to the level of responsibility of the individuals it governs.

[Black Dog]

You seem to believe that everyone in a capitalist world exists to greedily seek personal profit. I believe that is the concept being circulated in our Universities as well, not just socially but it is being taught in Business Administration. I believe that when a business is run out of the accountants office it can tend to become that and don't deny that some businesses exist to greedily seek personal profit. That is a perception that I would like to see changed because business should be about benefit to all of society.

Any capitalist worth his salt will freely admit that personal profit is the primary objective. In many cases it's the only objective. In so much as there are capitalists who believe in society, any social benefits are merely byproducts of the pursuit of profit, not an end unto itself.

[eyeball]

The captain on asinking ship makes sure everyone gets into the life rafts and then goes down with the ship. That's responsibility.

That's just plain nuts. He saves everyone then commits suicide?

[Pliny]

That's just plain nuts. He saves everyone then commits suicide?

What's nuts would be him scrambling on the life raft and heaving ho! The ship is the Captain's life and responsiblity. Certainly if he doesn't have to go down with the ship he doesn't have to, as long as all other lives are saved.

[Pliny]

Any capitalist worth his salt will freely admit that personal profit is the primary objective. In many cases it's the only objective. In so much as there are capitalists who believe in society, any social benefits are merely byproducts of the pursuit of profit, not an end unto itself.

And how is profit realized? By criminal negligence, by fraud and deceit?

The idea you present is prevalent with the left and many current capitalists trained in our Universities and public education system so you aren't wrong to hold this opinion. It is the concept that is wrong. It is not capitalism which has not existed for nearly a century in North America.

We have the same mentality in government by voting ourselves entitlements and deficit financing them to let the next generation pay.

People need to change their idea of self-interest. It is in one's self interest to be honest, co-operative, and responsible to, not just oneself but others, the environment, the community, the future and expunge the concept of any short term apparent gain that comes with criminality, fraud, deceit and negligence and greed which is what people increasingly

think are the ordinary activities of capitalism today, and if it were true, we wouldn't be getting our food and clothing

or maintaining a standard of living or improving the standard of living of others.

[Black Dog]

And how is profit realized? By criminal negligence, by fraud and deceit?

Often yes. Did you miss the housing bubble perchance?

The idea you present is prevalent with the left and many current capitalists trained in our Universities and public education system so you aren't wrong to hold this opinion. It is the concept that is wrong. It is not capitalism which has not existed for nearly a century in North America.

If it's not capitalism, what is it? Whatever you want to call it, it's the dominant system.

People need to change their idea of self-interest. It is in one's self interest to be honest, co-operative, and responsible to, not just oneself but others, the environment, the community, the future and expunge the concept of any short term apparent gain that comes with criminality, fraud, deceit and negligence and greed which is what people increasingly

think are the ordinary activities of capitalism today, and if it were true, we wouldn't be getting our food and clothing

or maintaining a standard of living or improving the standard of living of others.

But fraud, deceit and negligence are the ordinary activities of people who would describe themselves as capitalists. I don't see how that's even in question.

[GostHacked]

If it's not capitalism, what is it? Whatever you want to call it, it's the dominant system.

Corporate fascism is what I would call it.

[Pliny]

Often yes. Did you miss the housing bubble perchance?

Initiated and encouraged by government.

If it's not capitalism, what is it? Whatever you want to call it, it's the dominant system.

Crony Capitalism - a type of Fascism.

But fraud, deceit and negligence are the ordinary activities of people who would describe themselves as capitalists. I don't see how that's even in question.

Is that why the jails are full of people who describe themselves as capitalists?

You have to differentiate between what honest business is and fraud, deceit and negligence. Fraud, deceit and criminal negligence are crimes and dealt with in criminal courts. Most of the differences that occur in business involve unfulfilled contractual obligations and are settled in civil courts.

Your attitude regarding "capitalism" is the prevailing one in certain circles which explains why you can't see that it is in question. Certainly it becomes a self-prophetic truth when so-called capitalists of today are trained to run their businesses entirely out of their accountant's office or the accountant is entirely directing company policy.

Never the less, a free market is never stagnant and has ups and downs meaning fortunes won and fortunes lost, winners and losers. When government starts to intervene the winners and losers don't seem to change. Winners can't lose and losers can't win. It becomes a land of the privileged. In the end no one wins because it ends in tyranny or revolt.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Pliny

[kimmy]

The idea you present is prevalent with the left and many current capitalists trained in our Universities and public education system so you aren't wrong to hold this opinion. It is the concept that is wrong. It is not capitalism which has not existed for nearly a century in North America.

Ok, so what is your idea of capitalism, why did it disappear, and how do we get back there?

People need to change their idea of self-interest. It is in one's self interest to be honest, co-operative, and responsible to, not just oneself but others, the environment, the community, the future and expunge the concept of any short term apparent gain that comes with criminality, fraud, deceit and negligence and greed which is what people increasingly think are the ordinary activities of capitalism today, and if it were true, we wouldn't be getting our food and clothing or maintaining a standard of living or improving the standard of living of others.

But there is no incentive for anyone to expand their concept of what's in their self-interest. Why should some CEO expand his idea of self-interest to include others, the environment, the community, or the future? Why should he embrace the idea that he's responsible to others as well as himself?

-k

[Pliny]

Ok, so what is your idea of capitalism, why did it disappear, and how do we get back there?

There is mutual benefit in trade, otherwise trade would not occur. The benefits of trade improve people's standard of living. The growth of the middle class is evidence of the benefit to society. Capitalism is about free trade. It is also about reinvesting realized gains in further trade. I have some problems with Capitalism when it is entirely about money, especially fiat currencies that pass as money. But capitalism in its pure sense is about making money with money so money is an important aspect of it.

Why did it disappear? Money basically disappeared.

But there is no incentive for anyone to expand their concept of what's in their self-interest. Why should some CEO expand his idea of self-interest to include others, the environment, the community, or the future? Why should he embrace the idea that he's responsible to others as well as himself?

-k

There is always an ROI. So why would he not embrace the idea, besides it being a decent human trait and reputation is important.

[eyeball]

There is mutual benefit in trade, otherwise trade would not occur. The benefits of trade improve people's standard of living. The growth of the middle class is evidence of the benefit to society. Capitalism is about free trade. It is also about reinvesting realized gains in further trade. I have some problems with Capitalism when it is entirely about money, especially fiat currencies that pass as money. But capitalism in its pure sense is about making money with money so money is an important aspect of it.

Making money with money sounds more like something from nothing than anything else. If you claimed you could spin gold from straw at least you'd be proposing to take a quantifiable tangible material and turn it into something else.

Capitalism in it's basic form involves catching a fish or cutting down a tree and trading it for things, like the fish hooks and saws used to catch fish and cut trees for example.

Why did it disappear? Money basically disappeared.

Because things like fish and trees started disappearing.

There is always an ROI. So why would he not embrace the idea, besides it being a decent human trait and reputation is important.

Why would he embrace the idea if for some strange reason he believed that money had nothing to do with fish and trees and that he could just spin more out of thin money?

The real trick is turning money back into things like fish and trees. Figure that one out and you'd be rich beyond reason.