4 ms·

No ammount of voting makes the government liable to foot a bill. Government has no money of its own, it takes it from someone else.

notacoward 8y ago
I know that's something the think-they're-cool kids like to say, but how is it even relevant? In a tort context, it doesn't matter where the money comes from or whose money it is in abstract, and BTW it could just be made up out of thin air instead of being taken via taxes so even that part isn't accurate. All that matters is whether the plaintiff can be forced to pay. If it's the government then the answer is no. If it's a private party who doesn't have the money the answer is still no. The outcome doesn't change. If a plaintiff who is providing an essential service is driven into bankruptcy then the government will either have to provide operating funds or take over entirely, and we're back to how they can be held accountable. "Their" money vs. "someone else's" money never comes into it. No matter whose money it is, nobody can force the government to do anything it reserves the right not to. As the entity controlling the courts and the enforcement of courts' decisions, they can simply nullify any decision ... until they're held accountable at the ballot box. The idea that unlimited liability somehow creates accountability is absurd. All it would do is put more things in the hands of government.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  > The idea that unlimited liability somehow creates accountability is absurd Of course, and I dont agree with your intepretation that the courts can nullify requests on the state: the state often pays a lot of damages and compensations, it just does it by taxing third parties. It's an important detail: if if PGE threatens bankrupcy and for example, endangers payouts to small counties and individuals that lost their homes, you could think that the state should bail out PG&E to help those people. After-all the bailout is free. Or you should think that the state invents a program to raise taxes to alleviate the condition of the victims, and PG&E is not even mentioned.
  - notacoward 8y ago
    > the state often pays a lot of damages and compensations Even more often it denies suit. It's called sovereign immunity, and at the US federal level it must be explicitly waived before a suit can even start. There are many other ways that governments at all levels protect themselves from the liability a private party would have for doing the same things. An occasional exception doesn't change the fact that they have and use the ability. > you could think that the state should bail out PG&E Not "should" so much as "will". I know it's not free, but it's going to happen anyway in the case of essential services. That's the real point. You can't sue PG&E into oblivion. You can just back-door nationalize it via lawsuits. Is that what you think should happen? I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at here, other than repeating a "gubmint is evil" trope that has no bearing on the situation at hand.

notacoward 8y ago

I know that's something the think-they're-cool kids like to say, but how is it even relevant? In a tort context, it doesn't matter where the money comes from or whose money it is in abstract, and BTW it could just be made up out of thin air instead of being taken via taxes so even that part isn't accurate. All that matters is whether the plaintiff can be forced to pay. If it's the government then the answer is no. If it's a private party who doesn't have the money the answer is still no. The outcome doesn't change. If a plaintiff who is providing an essential service is driven into bankruptcy then the government will either have to provide operating funds or take over entirely, and we're back to how they can be held accountable. "Their" money vs. "someone else's" money never comes into it. No matter whose money it is, nobody can force the government to do anything it reserves the right not to. As the entity controlling the courts and the enforcement of courts' decisions, they can simply nullify any decision ... until they're held accountable at the ballot box. The idea that unlimited liability somehow creates accountability is absurd. All it would do is put more things in the hands of government.

conanbatt 8y ago
> The idea that unlimited liability somehow creates accountability is absurd Of course, and I dont agree with your intepretation that the courts can nullify requests on the state: the state often pays a lot of damages and compensations, it just does it by taxing third parties. It's an important detail: if if PGE threatens bankrupcy and for example, endangers payouts to small counties and individuals that lost their homes, you could think that the state should bail out PG&E to help those people. After-all the bailout is free. Or you should think that the state invents a program to raise taxes to alleviate the condition of the victims, and PG&E is not even mentioned.
- notacoward 8y ago
  > the state often pays a lot of damages and compensations Even more often it denies suit. It's called sovereign immunity, and at the US federal level it must be explicitly waived before a suit can even start. There are many other ways that governments at all levels protect themselves from the liability a private party would have for doing the same things. An occasional exception doesn't change the fact that they have and use the ability. > you could think that the state should bail out PG&E Not "should" so much as "will". I know it's not free, but it's going to happen anyway in the case of essential services. That's the real point. You can't sue PG&E into oblivion. You can just back-door nationalize it via lawsuits. Is that what you think should happen? I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at here, other than repeating a "gubmint is evil" trope that has no bearing on the situation at hand.