Paternalistic institution?

[kimmy]

My beliefs... the beliefs that will form the basis of the Futuristic World of Kimmorrow are a mixture of personal responsibility and reasonable expectations and consent.

If you buy a house in a neighborhood with a pub in it, you're taking something of a risk. And it's not a reasonable expectation that a neighborhood will never change. If the only basis of the complaint is that the neighborhood changed without your permission, then I don't think you've got much of a case. But that doesn't mean you can't work with your neighbors to find some other remedy.

If you join a no-contact hockey league and somebody body checks you and hurts you, they're in the wrong... you never consented to forceful physical contact when you joined a no-contact league. If you join a full contact league, and someone hurts you with a check that's within the rules, then you've only yourself to blame, because you understood that kind of contact was part of what you signed up for... you accepted those risks. But if you're in a full-contact league and someone bashes your head open with their stick or Bertuzzis you face-first into the ice, they have done something to you that you never consented to when you signed up.

If you are walking down the street, you have a reasonable expectation that you won't be punched in the face. If you've entered a boxing match, you don't have that expectation; you've entered that situation with the reasonable expectation that someone will indeed be trying to punch you in the face.

I'm not sure if that's "chick world", "jungle-guy world", "Red Queen world"... this is how I think things should work. This is "Kim World". There should be redress for people who have been wronged by others' negligence, but people who have got in harm's way through their own actions have to face up to their own lack of foresight.

As applies to this restaurant case...

If you go to a restaurant, you have a reasonable expectation of not being poisoned. You don't have a reasonable expectation that you'll find the food to your taste, but I think it goes without saying that you're entitled to expect the food will be safe.

Now, if this case is indeed linked to improper cooking of ground beef, then yes, the restaurants failed their patrons. The first thing that struck me about this case was that it seemed odd to me that 5 restaurants in one city would somehow all forget how to handle food properly at the same time.

If it was lettuce was the source of the bacteria, did the restaurants fail their patrons? In my own (thankfully brief) experience in the fast food industry, all we did with lettuce was wash it with cold water. I personally don't know if that's sufficient to kill bacteria. You can't boil lettuce before you serve it... maybe there's some other means of sterilizing lettuce before you serve it without ruining it, but I don't know what that would be. What I am leading up to is that the restaurant also has reasonable expectations of their suppliers. They have the expectation that the food they are buying will not make their customers sick. At the very least, they have the expectation that the lettuce won't have been soaked in poo-water.

What should have been done in this case? Would naming the restaurants have helped the public safety? That depends. If you know which restaurants the problem originated from, you send in your inspectors, and they're able to trace the problem to a source that's out of the restaurant's control, then I don't see how naming the restaurant helps. If they link the problem to improper procedures at the restaurant, then the restaurant should be named because they failed to meet their responsibilities. If the inspectors can't identify the problem, then they should probably identify the restaurants as a preventative measure in the public's best interest.

-kimmy

[August1991]

KimmyWorld? Is that like Sims Professional?

But getting back to the issue of responsibility and liability, what does the city official or judge decide?

Thats a very interesting question. It would probably boil down to who is at fault and if anyone was negligent.

*eyes roll* I love words like "fault" and "negligent". They imply "moral" error. Were it so simple. But in fact, I agree. Let me explain, after a few quotes and responses.

In the case of the noisy club, there are always public meetings before a new permit is issued when a company changes what it does. The thin line would be whether the pub has a right to become a club without getting a new permit.

Thin line? [Hint: Where you draw the line is irrelevant - but draw it clearly.]

In the case of you getting sick, it would boil down to whether the restaurant followed the health code to prepare your food.

Same thing as the line. Did the resto cross it?

So all the sick people sue the restaurant, the restaurant sues the supplier and the supplier sues the packing plant. In the end though, it is only the lawyers that benefit from all of this crap.

True, but it ain't crap at all. [Hint: Having being through the awful experience of writing cheques for lawyers, no resto will ever cross the line again. Did this lesson come in the cheapest way? Or were the lawyers in it only for the money?]

Another way to look at whether the names of the restaurant should be publicized or not.

Sorry, but you will have a very hard time convincing me that information should ever be withheld - I'd argue the effort is a waste of time. The sick people certainly knew what restaurants they ate in before getting sick.

Chances are you will avoid the place for a while but eventually you will go back when it does not make the front page anymore.

Agreed, we are in the world of risk - or the KimmyWorld of "ReasonableExpectation" - or is that a world without risk?

If you buy a house in a neighborhood with a pub in it, you're taking something of a risk. And it's not a reasonable expectation that a neighborhood will never change.

The risk is if they do.

But that doesn't mean you can't work with your neighbors to find some other remedy.

Let's sit down with OBL and work out a remedy. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)

If you are walking down the street, you have a reasonable expectation that you won't be punched in the face.

What about uncovered manholes? Falling bricks? Errant drunk drivers? Purse snatchers?

If you go to a restaurant, you have a reasonable expectation of not being poisoned.

Sorry, but that's the question. (Post syllogism ad hoc argument.)

In my own (thankfully brief) experience in the fast food industry, all we did with lettuce was wash it with cold water. I personally don't know if that's sufficient to kill bacteria.

That reminds me of a resto in Maryland. All the vegetables tasted of chlorine.

I digress. August Rules of Restos: 1. All restos in Italy are good - even cheap, you can't go wrong. 2. There are no good restos in the US - don't look, you won't find any.

They have the expectation that the food they are buying will not make their customers sick.

That word again. BTW, "expectation" has a precise meaning in mathematics translated as espérance - hopefulness. (It concerns probability.)

Would naming the restaurants have helped the public safety? That depends.

This naming idea seems to be a big issue. Is it? (Lapresse has a weekly column of contravening restos with precise descriptions of the infractions: "numerous cockroaches found under the principal cooking surface, dried white sauce littering the food preparation area" - Fine: 250$)

There should be redress for people who have been wronged by others' negligence, but people who have got in harm's way through their own actions have to face up to their own lack of foresight.

Full circle. Back to PlayFull.

We are down to what is fair.

-----

In the pub case, the "silence" of the street is a commodity. Who owns this commodity?

If the street residents own this commodity of "silence", they could shut the club down. But would they? The clubowner could buy their agreement - if the club was profitable. (Free beer if you can show you're a neighbour.)

If the club owns this commodity, the pubowner can use the street as she/he sees fit. In theory, the residents could "buy" the street's silence by paying the club-owner to shut down. (How would they do this? - Think of property values.)

--

The resto story takes this to another level.

Separate the "safety" of food from the food itself. "Safe" is a commodity separate from food. Who owns "safe"?

If the resto owns "safe", then you buy it when you buy the meal. You can sue a resto if they didn't in fact sell it to you.

If you own "safe", then you are on your own.

Legal fees are the transaction costs of finding this. Motors do not work without lubricants and markets do not work without transaction fees. The benefit of motors justify the cost of motor oil. And lawyers earn their fees as transaction costs.

----

Our legal system defines ownership. It defines the direction of liability. There are no obvious rules. If I were a judge, I would put the incentive of my decision where it would do the most good at least cost. And I would decide clearly to avoid future arguments.

I think the apartment and club case is easier. Who can sell/buy the quietude of a street more easily? As a judge, I'd go with the club as owner. Rents and house prices would be lower: "It's really cheap here but it's noisy on weekends."

Now, who can produce "safe" most cheaply? Restos probably know best how to produce "safe". They should be responsible and liable.

And of course the names should be published - but not by a City monopoly. (Now I am convinced municipalities should not inspect food.)

Should judges aim for fairness and justice? Never. God didn't. Some people are blue-eyed and blonde-haired. Meaning? Well read this. IOW, the issue is not about fairness or drawing a "fair" line or a "just" line. The issue is about a drawing line so that people who can best provide safe food do so, streets are used to best effect and beautiful people get jobs requiring beautiful people.

God aimed for wisdom. Everything to its proper place - as easily as possible. I don't really know if God aimed for wisdom, but the idea strikes me as morally good.