3 ms·

That's because most people today don't believe in making restitution. They think that if they just pretend they're innocent in front of a court that they'll be

by trebor 15y ago

That's because most people today don't believe in making restitution. They think that if they just pretend they're innocent in front of a court that they'll be acquitted. It's simpler and cheaper to take responsibility by paying for your mistake. Regulations assume the individual will take no responsibility. Admittedly, as I said above, there are people who do not do so. But if the judges threw the book at the people who did so, so that it cost more than just making restitution... maybe people would change. Rather than just regulating ourselves into a straightjacket made of permits, I'd like (even a little) more responsibility over my mistakes and less permits to file/pay for.

anigbrowl 15y ago
The idea of a golden age when litigation was rare and fair dealing was the order of the day is a myth, as far as I can tell. My torts casebook quotes cases going back to the 14th century, and perjury and frameups were enough of a problem in ancient Babylon to be subject to legal proscription. People have always tried to get off the hook for their liabilities. It's not a new phenomenon. People are not going to change; this is why neither libertarianism nor communism scales well. What you call restitution is known in law as economic damages. When you mention throwing the book at people who try to evade their responsibilities, that's called punitive damages. The tort reform movement is always saying that damages are abusive and that people should be protected from punitive damages, and tend to be opposed to excessive regulation as well. The plaintiff bar argues that without the threat of unlimited liability injured parties will have no legal remedy. Consider the alternative, where your neighbor turns out to be an obnoxious ass and brings suit against you without a good reason. It happens, and if your neighbor is wealthy or just very persistent then fighting off his suit will be an expensive inconvenience at best. By obtaining and complying with a permit, you are insulated from his abusive litigation. This does not happen so often with homeowners, but such conflicts between businesses are not at all uncommon - think patent litigation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturges_v_Bridgman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturges_v_Bridgman is a famous example; in a nutshell, your private rights are subordinate to society's overall interest, since the latter is nothing more than the aggregated interests of other private individuals. The object of fees and permits is not to maximize revenue but to minimize litigation, which usually ends up costing more than bureaucracy.

by trebor 15y ago

anigbrowl 15y ago

The idea of a golden age when litigation was rare and fair dealing was the order of the day is a myth, as far as I can tell. My torts casebook quotes cases going back to the 14th century, and perjury and frameups were enough of a problem in ancient Babylon to be subject to legal proscription. People have always tried to get off the hook for their liabilities. It's not a new phenomenon. People are not going to change; this is why neither libertarianism nor communism scales well. What you call restitution is known in law as economic damages. When you mention throwing the book at people who try to evade their responsibilities, that's called punitive damages. The tort reform movement is always saying that damages are abusive and that people should be protected from punitive damages, and tend to be opposed to excessive regulation as well. The plaintiff bar argues that without the threat of unlimited liability injured parties will have no legal remedy. Consider the alternative, where your neighbor turns out to be an obnoxious ass and brings suit against you without a good reason. It happens, and if your neighbor is wealthy or just very persistent then fighting off his suit will be an expensive inconvenience at best. By obtaining and complying with a permit, you are insulated from his abusive litigation. This does not happen so often with homeowners, but such conflicts between businesses are not at all uncommon - think patent litigation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturges_v_Bridgman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturges_v_Bridgman is a famous example; in a nutshell, your private rights are subordinate to society's overall interest, since the latter is nothing more than the aggregated interests of other private individuals. The object of fees and permits is not to maximize revenue but to minimize litigation, which usually ends up costing more than bureaucracy.