3 ms·
It's interesting. One the one hand, I understand that there needs to be some incentive for companies to ensure the safety of their products or actions. In the U
by y7 5y ago
It's interesting. One the one hand, I understand that there needs to be some incentive for companies to ensure the safety of their products or actions. In the US, this seems to be (punitive) damages, whereas in Europe it's more through stronger regulations. The nice thing about damages is that it's in terms of moeny, and since companies optimize for money, this does sorta make sense.
However, this also legitimizes dealing with the potential of human tragedy or injury as a mere financial risk. Companies are already terribly dehumanized, and I don't think this legitimization helps for this. At least with regulation there is a direct effort to prevent tragedy, and the framing is also closer to this objective. Of course, the goal for companies will still be "we have to adhere to the regulation", but at least the question "why does the regulation exist?" remains nearby. I think it's also the more democratic approach: rather than putting the incentive mechanism in the hands of a judge, democratically elected governments take direct measures to protect their citizens.
- romwell 5y agoIn a nutshell, you just described why the American Libertarian fantasy of hands-off approach that replaces regulation with reliance on the justice system and lawsuits is undemocratic. Also, note the stigma and shaming of "lawsuit-happy Americans" who are "entitled" and "sheltered", etc. - even in this forum, where people should know better! So not only people don't understand that the lawsuits are a compliance enforcement mechanism, but they are actively preventing it from working by saying things like "nothing is perfectly safe, hurr durr". Anyway. Thank you for putting it this succinctly; I wish your comment was at the top: >There needs to be some incentive for companies to ensure the safety of their products or actions. In the US, this seems to be (punitive) damages, whereas in Europe it's more through stronger regulations. The nice thing about damages is that it's in terms of moeny, and since companies optimize for money, this does sorta make sense.
- ryandrake 5y agoUnfortunately, the tort-based method of enforcement leads to companies doing that notorious calculation: C = cost of safety feature, P = probability of lawsuit, J = expected total damages, if C > P x J, we don't make the product safe.
- romwell 5y agoYes, which makes it even more absurd that people here are complaining about calls to increase J by having the OP sue Bose (given that increasing J is the only way we can actually make them care). Everything about it is quite unfortunate.