7 ms·

Case law is still law. Libertarians who think "SUE SUE SUE" is the answer really frustrate me: It's random judges picking the law instead of elected reps

by gte910h 13y ago

burntsushi 13y ago
People who think "throw more politicians at the problem" really frustrate me: they are a bunch of random people seeking more power for themselves.
rayiner 13y ago
I've always found it a bit strange that libertarians' solution to everything is always "sue!"
dreamdu5t 13y ago
I would rather have judges, in a court case where parties get to represent themselves, applying common law, with a jury of my peers deciding the verdict... than random idiots elected by a bunch of other random idiots I don't know make laws without my input.
- gte910h 13y ago
  Judges create case law, over and over. Common law was created that way, and tons more is created that way every day. I don't know why you assume this is better that popularly chosen law.
  - dreamdu5t 13y ago
    Common law is popularly chosen law created by the people. Statutory law (almost entirely with the exception of a few states and their referendums) isn't. Statutory laws applying to 350+ million people are crafted by 435 people.
    - gte910h 13y ago
      >Common law is popularly chosen law created by the people No it's not. It's case law from England. It's created by judges.
- bane 13y ago
  Consider this: You just died because, during treatment for an easily treatable medical problem, a lack of regulation allowed some part of that treatment to have a higher probability of complications. Now go sue.
  - burntsushi 13y ago
    That just doesn't make any sense. That's a problem with and without regulation. First of all, some medical procedures have risks. That's just how it works. Second of all, someone could die in a world with a ton of regulations by a problem that could have been "solved" by a regulation. So you're emotional retort applies here too: "Now go elect a new representative to pass a different law."
    - bane 13y ago
      It makes no sense to die from an unregulated medical procedure? Let's say it's stitches, and there's no regulation against reusing a stitching needle because in your world the elected body doesn't do that sort of thing. The doctor just washes it off a bit so it's not so gross looking every time. You're one of the 1-2% that contracts something horrible from the doctor and you're dead within 24 hours. Now sue.
      - burntsushi 13y ago
        > It makes no sense to die from an unregulated medical procedure? What? No. Your argument doesn't make any sense. I then went on to explain why. > Let's say it's stitches, and there's no regulation against reusing a stitching needle because in your world the elected body doesn't do that sort of thing. The doctor just washes it off a bit so it's not so gross looking every time. > You're one of the 1-2% that contracts something horrible from the doctor and you're dead within 24 hours. > Now sue. This is precisely the same argument as before, but with an example. My criticism still applies. I'll adopt your example so that my criticism is crystal clear: > Let's say it's stitches, and since law makers didn't setup regulation against reusing a stitching needle because in your world the elected body is incompetent/ignorant/behind. The doctor just washes it off a bit so it's not so gross looking every time. > You're one of the 1-2% that contracts something horrible from the doctor and you're dead within 24 hours. > Now elect a different representative to change or add that regulation. Or lobby your existing one. In either scenario, the end result is "you're dead, so ANY fix is moot."

Case law is still law. Libertarians who think "SUE SUE SUE" is the answer really frustrate me: It's random judges picking the law instead of elected reps

by gte910h 13y ago

Case law is still law. Libertarians who think "SUE SUE SUE" is the answer really frustrate me: It's random judges picking the law instead of elected reps

burntsushi 13y ago

People who think "throw more politicians at the problem" really frustrate me: they are a bunch of random people seeking more power for themselves.

rayiner 13y ago

I've always found it a bit strange that libertarians' solution to everything is always "sue!"

dreamdu5t 13y ago

I would rather have judges, in a court case where parties get to represent themselves, applying common law, with a jury of my peers deciding the verdict... than random idiots elected by a bunch of other random idiots I don't know make laws without my input.

gte910h 13y ago
Judges create case law, over and over. Common law was created that way, and tons more is created that way every day. I don't know why you assume this is better that popularly chosen law.
- dreamdu5t 13y ago
  Common law is popularly chosen law created by the people. Statutory law (almost entirely with the exception of a few states and their referendums) isn't. Statutory laws applying to 350+ million people are crafted by 435 people.
  - gte910h 13y ago
    >Common law is popularly chosen law created by the people No it's not. It's case law from England. It's created by judges.
bane 13y ago
Consider this: You just died because, during treatment for an easily treatable medical problem, a lack of regulation allowed some part of that treatment to have a higher probability of complications. Now go sue.
- burntsushi 13y ago
  That just doesn't make any sense. That's a problem with and without regulation. First of all, some medical procedures have risks. That's just how it works. Second of all, someone could die in a world with a ton of regulations by a problem that could have been "solved" by a regulation. So you're emotional retort applies here too: "Now go elect a new representative to pass a different law."
  - bane 13y ago
    It makes no sense to die from an unregulated medical procedure? Let's say it's stitches, and there's no regulation against reusing a stitching needle because in your world the elected body doesn't do that sort of thing. The doctor just washes it off a bit so it's not so gross looking every time. You're one of the 1-2% that contracts something horrible from the doctor and you're dead within 24 hours. Now sue.
    - burntsushi 13y ago
      > It makes no sense to die from an unregulated medical procedure? What? No. Your argument doesn't make any sense. I then went on to explain why. > Let's say it's stitches, and there's no regulation against reusing a stitching needle because in your world the elected body doesn't do that sort of thing. The doctor just washes it off a bit so it's not so gross looking every time. > You're one of the 1-2% that contracts something horrible from the doctor and you're dead within 24 hours. > Now sue. This is precisely the same argument as before, but with an example. My criticism still applies. I'll adopt your example so that my criticism is crystal clear: > Let's say it's stitches, and since law makers didn't setup regulation against reusing a stitching needle because in your world the elected body is incompetent/ignorant/behind. The doctor just washes it off a bit so it's not so gross looking every time. > You're one of the 1-2% that contracts something horrible from the doctor and you're dead within 24 hours. > Now elect a different representative to change or add that regulation. Or lobby your existing one. In either scenario, the end result is "you're dead, so ANY fix is moot."