RoR: Forum

There was such a bill once but too many have forgotten all about it:

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights

(heee)

Post 1

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 11:03am

Wow, a piece of common-sense legislation actually makes it out of the House??? I think I may faint...

"But of course this silly legislative effort has nothing to do with encouraging personal responsibility and everything to do with pleasing a powerful and politically connected industry,"

Another Marxist heard from. I'm surprised this mook didn't use the term, "Big Food" (a la Big Oil, et cetera).

Post 2

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 11:38am

Ya know Summer I woud call it common sense legistlation too except for the fact that it is redundant at best (frankly I find these laws dangerous). Of course McDonalds isnt to blame for obesity. This should be common sense knowledge and justice shoule be effected accordingly. It is not, not always anyway. These kinds of laws should be utterly unecessary. The fact that they exist at all is frightening

Post 3

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 12:02pm

I agree wholeheartedly, Marnee. My response was based upon current political reality (within the context of U.S. politics and culture), rather than idealism (as yours was). I guess my idealistic side has withered somewhat over the years.

C'est la vie...

;o)

(Edited by Summer Serravillo on 10/20, 12:03pm)

Post 4

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 1:23am

Oh, for a bill that instead says, "Listen up, consumers, it's your life, and you'd better bloody accept that you - and you alone - are responsible for the consequences of your actions!"?

Fat chance!

;-)

Post 5

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 9:08am

Marty, that would never fly. People might start demanding liberty to match their responsibility, and the scumbags in power can't have that. Why, if people had real liberty and real responsibility, then the nanny-statists would have to get real jobs.

Post 6

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 4:14pm

I'm with Marnee on this.

In principle, this law is wrong.

The danger here is that Congress sets itself up to decide which lawsuits & class actions are legit and which aren't.

Now, we all might agree that getting fat is down to you and not the guys who sold you the food but the danger is that with successive laws of this type you transfer legitimate responsibility from the transgressor to society as a whole through compensation schemes, regulatory mechanisms & those oh-so attractive "public education" (read:indoctrination) programs.

Sure, you can't sue Burger King but in lieu of that Congress will authorise a whole bunch of socially responsible measures to help those *at risk*.

Fast food vendors should not be held responsible but neither should they be protected by specific laws. It's the role of the courts to decide this at common law. If they ain't doing that then perhaps the Bill of Rights needs to be made more explicit. Just one good ruling from the Supreme Court would solve this issue across the board, surely.

Ross

Post 7

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 4:22pm

The courts aren't doing their job. I of course agree that the fast food industry is already "protected" but the simple fact is that in this country, you can sue whoever for whatever and its up to the judge to decide its merit. A responsible judge would throw a case like that out and fine the plaintiff and his lawyer for wasting the courts time. Since that only works in the South (and only sometimes) the House didn't have much of a choice here.

Post 8

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 4:43pm

Well, sure, Clarence, but in what other circumstances will the house feel that it doesn't have much of a choice? That's the danger.

In my New Zealand, in the mid '70s, all of us lost the right to sue for personal injury and a tax funded "no fault" system known as the Accident Compensation Scheme was implemented.

That is, if a drunk driver knocks me down, instead of me being able to sue the ass of him, I receive a paltry compensation from a government agency that I have already contributed to through my taxes. The driver gets off with a charge of dangerous driving carrying a fine and perhaps temporary disqualification.

Here's the thing: the American system of unrestrained lawsuiting is cited as the main reason that our system is *superior*!

We also have a massive bureaucracy whose job it is to regulate workplace safety & fine employers if they transgress. In other words, my prerogative as a maimed or injured person to sue someone has been transferred to an overbearing state apparatus. And worse, in recent years the state has taken to suing those *it* sees as being particularly onerous. I lose my rights. The state assumes more power. We all suffer. That's where you guys are heading.

Ross

Post 9

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 11:47pm

=============
I lose my rights. The state assumes more power. We all suffer. That's where you guys are heading.
=============

Hear, hear.

Ed

Post 10

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 10:56pm