posted
IMPORTANT CORRECTION AND WARNING: The page I linked to is only the first of several pages of definitions. The definitions on the first page shouldn't give offense to anyone in terms of language. I am told that definitions on subsequent pages should be avoided -- offensive language is used on some of them.
The Urban Dictionary has a total of seven definitions for the word "Bork." To be fair, only three of them apply to Judge Robert Bork, former attorney general ("Saturday Night Massacre) and Supreme Court nominee.
I think there should be a new one.
quote: Bork (v.) the change in heart that occurs in a tort reform advocate when they trip and fall on the property of someone with deep pockets.
quote:Bork, as many of you will recall, was nominated for a position on the U.S. Supreme Court, but failed to win confirmation when his radical opinions and truculent manner raised concerns about his judicial temperament. In the wake of that rebuff, he has gotten even more shrill, thundering against the "moral rot" of popular culture and advocating censorship, presumably to be imposed by people who agree with Robert Bork. He has written articles favoring stricter punishments for wrongdoers, and advocating "tort reform" restrictions on the right of injured parties to recover damages. In a 2002 article, Bork argued for a cap on "frivolous" claims and "excessive" damage awards. He has been particularly passionate in arguing against awards of punitive damages to injured plaintiffs.
***
Bork showed truly breathtaking chutzpah, however, following a fall as he was mounting the dais to make a speech at New York's Yale Club. The good judge has sued the Club for $1 million plus -- you guessed it -- punitive damages.
posted
In terms of "excessive damage awards", one million dollars doesn't seem very big at all. As bad as it looks at first glance, there really might not be any hypocracy here.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm no legal expert, but one million dollars would be outrageous even for punitive damages. He tripped on some steps. How injured could he possibly be? How much punishment really deserve?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A dais needs steps and a handrail??? Why not mandatory airbags?
Given his deep and fundamental dishonesty, I'd wonder how a jury could ever come to the conclusion that he didn't deliberately attempt to fake tripping to engage in extortion through the legal system, and that any injuries were because he klutzed out.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm, on the Urban Dictionary link, there are actually 23 definitions, and I only see one that applies to the Supreme Court nominee. Many of them are pretty foul, though, as is common for Urban Dictionary, so you might wanna warn those who are unfamiliar with it.
Not that any of that detracts from your main point, mind you.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bork reports that he suffered serious injuries that required surgery and months of physical therapy. He claims he was unable to work for much of the year, and to this day suffers from impaired mobility.
The surgery, the physical therapy, and the lost wages are recoverable, as are pain and suffering. How much does Bork make in a year? I don't know. But a partner at a law firm out of work for a year (I know he's not one right now, but he's certainly up there in prestige) would easily surpass 1 million in damages.
quote:He's argued against being able to push punitive damages at all.
I don't find that inconsistent with suing someone for punitive damages. Wanting the law to be changed does not mean one has to handicap oneself prior to the change occurring. Unintentional tort law is set up to allocate the risk of injury across society mostly on a fault basis. There's no particular need to allocate risk this way - we could have damages paid by those affected, we could have the government reimburse accident victims, we could move to no-fault insurance systems. There are lots of reasons to prefer our system over those. But someone who advocated changing to a different system cannot be faulted for not availing himself of the existing system prior to such change.
Now, if Bork's allegations turn out to be false or his suit frivolous, then he deserves criticism. But the mere fact of asking for punitive damages without a detailed analysis of why it's frivolous to ask for them is not a reason for criticism.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
But as that link says, the allegations are most likely overblown. What kind of injury allows you to get up, stand and deliver a speech, and leave on your own, but then ends up crippling you that badly?
quote:
quote:He's argued against being able to push punitive damages at all.
I don't find that inconsistent with suing someone for punitive damages. Wanting the law to be changed does not mean one has to handicap oneself prior to the change occurring.
I think it's completely inconsistent. You're right that you don't have to handicap yourself in such a situation, but it does make you look like a big frequin' hypocrite. To say "x should not be allowed" is to say that something is wrong with x. To then do x yourself is to say that there's nothing wrong with it if it suits you.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But as that link says, the allegations are most likely overblown. What kind of injury allows you to get up, stand and deliver a speech, and leave on your own, but then ends up crippling you that badly?
You state "He tripped on some steps. How injured could he possibly be?" I demonstrated situations where it would be possible to arrive at those kinds of damages. I don't know if he was that injured, but I don't think your incredulity was taking the full scope of damages into account.
quote:To say "x should not be allowed" is to say that something is wrong with x.
That might be true if we were talking about criminalizing a particular act. But if we're talking about an inherently artificial system designed to allocate the cost of accidents between members of society and to civilly punish particularly dangerous behavior, there's nothing wrong with saying "the system should be different" but still using the system prior to that change.
The people advocating the removal of punitive damages are advocating other means of punishing wrongdoing. Until those other means are in place, this is what they are stuck with.
If you think the speed limit should be 55, you're not being inconsistent by driving 75 where it's legal.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hmm, on the Urban Dictionary link, there are actually 23 definitions, and I only see one that applies to the Supreme Court nominee. Many of them are pretty foul, though, as is common for Urban Dictionary, so you might wanna warn those who are unfamiliar with it.
I am very sorry. I was doing things quickly on a break and didn't notice that I was looking at only the first of several pages.
The first page is pretty safe - I haven't checked the others, but will post an alert in the first post.
(although only one definition mentions Robert Bork, I am pretty sure that at least one or two of the others started with him as an inspiration - relying on my memory and having lived through the inglorious days of "The Saturday Night Massacre" and his confirmation hearing.)
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It rather sounds like Bork is a hypocrite. And I think it's perfectly reasonable to find fault with him in this matter. Not that doing so removes his ability to take advantage of the legal system.
If one advocated for removal of punitive damages, one should be willing to forgo those damages; otherwise, one is suggesting that everyone else should be unable to receive punitive damages.
Or, as St. Augustine is said to have said, "Make me pure and chaste, Lord- but not yet."
Maybe he should file charges against his shoe company instead? Or the contractor responsible for building the steps?
Or, maybe, watch his step?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
quote--"The people advocating the removal of punitive damages are advocating other means of punishing wrongdoing."
Really, Dag? I thought the only "other means" that the Bork types were advocating were along the lines of "I don't care what you think I should have to pay for the harm you suffered. You're the wrong race, and your bank account is too small, which means you don't matter. Come and take my money from me by force, if you think you can get past my bodyguard."
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Really, Dag? I thought the only "other means" that the Bork types were advocating were along the lines of "I don't care what you think I should have to pay for the harm you suffered. You're the wrong race, and your bank account is too small, which means you don't matter. Come and take my money from me by force, if you think you can get past my bodyguard."
Look, Steven, I am not a fan of "tort reform" which is, I would guess, a Frank Lutz-generated term to make limiting the ability of average joes and jills to sue for damages sound "progressive."
Having said that, I find nothing helpful or particularly useful in the statement above. While I disagree with "tort reform," the description above is not one I would use (because it unfairly attacks proponents of "reform") - and is a poor substitute for arguing the substance of the issues involved.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, no, I really didn't understand. I didn't think that there were any suggestions at all other than "change your race and grow your bank account". I still don't think there are other suggestions, because no one has suggested any, and I'm guessing that any that have been suggested in other places are based at least partially on wishful thinking.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't think that there were any suggestions at all other than "change your race and grow your bank account".
If this is true, it's clearly pointless to discuss this with you, since anyone who actually thinks that is either willfully ignorant or not capable of understanding the issue.
quote:If one advocated for removal of punitive damages, one should be willing to forgo those damages; otherwise, one is suggesting that everyone else should be unable to receive punitive damages.
No, one is suggesting that a tort system without punitive damages for anyone would be better than the tort system we have now.
It's a bit of a shame that "tort reform" has come to mean only one small set of ideas. There's no question that there are reforms that could make our tort system much better - some of which would tend to help plaintiffs more, some of which would tend to help defendants more, and some of which would help the rest of the public.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"f this is true, it's clearly pointless to discuss this with you, since anyone who actually thinks that is either willfully ignorant or not capable of understanding the issue."
Then color me "willfully ignorant". You are certainly free to enumerate such reforms, but I think anyone as polarized as Bork toward one end of the political spectrum is pretty much automatically biased, and therefore needs to be viewed/listened to through a filter, or several filters.
If you're suggesting reforms that Bork would find abhorrent, that's a horse of a different color. Got a purple horse?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Where did this "thought" of yours come from? Did you make it up out of whole cloth, or is it based on some actual evidence?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I was the only person around during the Bork confirmation hearings in the 80s.
Yeah, I am calling Bork biased, Dag. He is. I'm a political centrist, by most definitions. Or was that not your point?
I don't think Reagan was our worst president ever, but the man was far,far from the political center, and his choices for Supreme Court nominees reflect that.
What I am, in fact, saying, is that political centrism should be one of the most important criteria for a judge of any kind, period.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, one is suggesting that a tort system without punitive damages for anyone would be better than the tort system we have now.
That's not how it comes across, and anyone who has spent as much time in the public eye as Bork should surely be aware of that. If he believes punitive damages are harmful to the judicial process, or a misuse of legal proceedings, then files a claim, does he believe the harm or misuse is not occurring in his case?
If one believes that speed limits should be 55, then- unless doing so creates an unsafe driving situation- why shouldn't they stay in the right lane and go 55? Why contribute to the fuel inefficency and reduced safety?
Or to use a more snarky metaphor, "I feel people should be vegetarians. But while people continue to eat meat, I'm going to avail myself of the easy protein of this ham sandwich."
Now, I will freely admit to some bias; I find it hard to imagine that Bork suffered injuries that prevented him from accruing $1 million in earnings, I highly doubt that he would seek such damages if he had tripped at a less wealthy institution, and I find it hard to feel a great deal of sympathy for someone who assumes their lifestyle requires a million dollars a year or more. But, more to the point, were I a lawyer- let alone one with similar feelings regarding punitive damages- I would hesitate to take such a case, out of the suspicion that it would be thrown out as frivilous.
quote:It's a bit of a shame that "tort reform" has come to mean only one small set of ideas. There's no question that there are reforms that could make our tort system much better - some of which would tend to help plaintiffs more, some of which would tend to help defendants more, and some of which would help the rest of the public.
quote:Yeah, I am calling Bork biased, Dag. He is. I'm a political centrist, by most definitions. Or was that not your point?
1) Centrists can be biased just as extremists.
2) You've made accusations that are NOT supported by the confirmation hearings. They're the worst kind of tripe, bordering on lies. You want to take exception to his stance on affirmative action or federal intervention in civil rights cases, fine, but to say what you said is atrocious.
quote:That's not how it comes across, and anyone who has spent as much time in the public eye as Bork should surely be aware of that. If he believes punitive damages are harmful to the judicial process, or a misuse of legal proceedings, then files a claim, does he believe the harm or misuse is not occurring in his case?
It comes across that way because opportunistic pundits put it across that way.
quote:If one believes that speed limits should be 55, then- unless doing so creates an unsafe driving situation- why shouldn't they stay in the right lane and go 55? Why contribute to the fuel inefficency and reduced safety?
But why should they? Demanding that people who desire political or legal reform live as if the reform had already happened is nor a tenable position.
Further, the accusation of double standards is quite simply not supported by behavior in line with the current system but not the preferred one. Your specific criticism was that Bork was suggesting a different standard of behavior for others than for himself. It's not true. What we have here is an example of Bork holding himself to the same standard of behavior in this regard as everyone else. Without some indication that he would demand an exception for his punitive damages after reform, your accusation is unsupported by the incident it was made in response to.
quote:Now, I will freely admit to some bias; I find it hard to imagine that Bork suffered injuries that prevented him from accruing $1 million in earnings, I highly doubt that he would seek such damages if he had tripped at a less wealthy institution, and I find it hard to feel a great deal of sympathy for someone who assumes their lifestyle requires a million dollars a year or more. But, more to the point, were I a lawyer- let alone one with similar feelings regarding punitive damages- I would hesitate to take such a case, out of the suspicion that it would be thrown out as frivilous.
That's an entirely different criticism than "seeking punitive damages when one advocates abolishing them is hypocritical." That's a specific suspicion - no more than that without more investigation - about the legitimacy of a particular law suit.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee: It comes across that way because opportunistic pundits put it across that way.
No, it comes across that way because Bork's actions and professed beliefs conflict, the very definition of hypocrisy. Most people told the facts would say Bork is a hypocrite. Pundits have nothing to do with that.
quote:No, it comes across that way because Bork's actions and professed beliefs conflict, the very definition of hypocrisy.
His professed belief is "we should change the system." That does not conflict with the belief "people can use the existing system until it is changed." If Bork believes both those things, then he is not a hypocrite. And the pundits are making it appear this way because they are misrepresenting "we should change the system" as "people who seek punitive damages under the current system are doing something immoral."
Please explain how the belief "the system should be X" conflicts with the action of complying with the existing system.
I'm honestly not understanding why people seem to have trouble with the concept of wanting to change the system but not abandoning it prior to that change.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
My understanding, which may be wrong (so please correct me if I am), is that tort reformers seek to eliminate or place caps on punitive damages, but do not seek to replace punitive damages with an alternative remedy. They support their argument by claiming, for example: (i) punitive damages, especially in high-profile cases, are excessive; (ii) trial attorneys receive an unusually high percentage of the awards; and (iii) punitive damages constitute an unconstitutional regulation of companies through litigation and their use effectively circumvents the legislative process.
In other words, the tort reformers oppose punitive damages because they are, in theory and in practice, bad for society.
Is it not inconsistent to oppose punitive damages because they are bad for society, on the one hand, and then sue to recover punitive damages for yourself, on the other hand? If you genuinely believe that punitive damages are bad for society, then you would not seek to recover them for yourself.
I see no inconsistency with Bork filing suit to recover his economic and non-economic damages (although I believe that some tort reformers even want to limit or eliminate non-economic damages). The current tort system is the only system presently available for Bork to seek redress. But to claim punitive damages when you believe that they are bad for society and should be eliminated, smacks of hypocrisy.
It's no different than a congressman claiming that legislators should not be allowed to accept gifts from lobbyists, and then later accepting a gift from a lobbyist. Would you agree that this constitutes hypocrisy?
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to comment on the statement about how injured could he be if he still made the speech.
Two years ago I hurt my neck sneezing. I herniated a disk. There was a little pain when I herniated it. I was shaving and held in a powerful sneeze so I would not make a mess in the bathroom. I knew immediately that I had done something. I did not know what. I still went to Church, came home, ate lunch, did laundry. The pain grew more through out the day. By night time I was in such pain I could not sleep. With in three more days I was in such pain in my right arm I could not walk A week later, on serious pain meds an MRI found the heriniated disk. I had surgery 3 weeks after I did the damage and was off work for 5 weeks after that.
I find it very possible that a man who is in his 70's(?) and probably makes a good living making speeches and stuff, could have $1 million in expenses and lost wages. My surgury ran in the range of $70,000 and I was only on the table for 2 hours.
Do not jump to conclusions about how hurt the man was.
posted
If one believes that the government shouldn't be in the business of supporting art or culture, are they a hypocrite if they go to a museum that is funded by the government?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If one believes that the government shouldn't be in the business of supporting art or culture, are they a hypocrite if they go to a museum that is funded by the government?
No. But that circumstance is different. That person is not benefiting from his or her own conduct, which conduct he or she specifically believes to be wrong or bad for society. That person does not believe that going to museums is wrong.
If a person believes that dog fighting is wrong or immoral, would he be a hypocrite if he went to and bet on dog fights?
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it not inconsistent to oppose punitive damages because they are bad for society, on the one hand, and then sue to recover punitive damages for yourself, on the other hand?
No. Because the behavior of individuals is changed by punitive damages. Possible behavioral changes include not taking certain actions, charging more for certain actions, taking out more insurance, and many others. The effects of tort law as it stands ripple throughout our society and economy, not just those involved in cases.
The costs of each of these actions - and their benefits - are borne by different people, people who modify their behavior in response.
The tort reformers' claim is that the modifications to actions as a whole cost more than the benefits. I'm not taking a position on that right now, but the point is that they - as much as everyone else in society - bear those costs. To deprive themselves of any chance of a benefit while they are bearing those costs is not something they need to do to not be hypocritical. They object to a particular divvying up of risk and compensation. They can't opt out of the downside, so why should they opt out of the upside when it occurs?
quote:It's no different than a congressman claiming that legislators should not be allowed to accept gifts from lobbyists, and then later accepting a gift from a lobbyist. Would you agree that this constitutes hypocrisy?
Let's change it up a little from "gifts" to campaign contributions. If a candidate thinks it is bad for society to allow certain types of campaign contributions, should he deprive himself of those contributions while his opponents do not? That would mean suffering a serious political handicap - facing all of the negative consequences of the existing policy but not taking advantage of the positive ones.
This is a system, not a single iteration.
quote:No. But that circumstance is different. That person is not benefiting from his or her own conduct, which conduct he or she specifically believes to be wrong or bad for society. That person does not believe that going to museums is wrong.
No, the circumstances are perfectly analogous. He is benefiting himself by taking the opportunity to see art that is not elsewhere.
This is not hypocritical because he objects to a system for allocating art between museums. That system not only affects what is in government museums but also what is in private museums. Thus, the system has a direct impact on the availability of art to him. Were he to deny himself the art in the government museums, he would be taking the bad consequences - which he cannot avoid - and getting nothing good out of it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me make this a personal example. When I was in college, two friends and I started a religious magazine. The school refused to pay for it, even though it funded 15 other student-run periodicals.
The only restriction on content was no religious speech.
This had serious consequences for us. It was much harder to recruit, we could only put out 1 issue a semester, we spent way more time selling ads and begging for donations, and we had a harder time maintaining a readership due to the long lag between issues. In the marketplace of ideas that was "student-run publications at UVA," we were seriously disadvantaged by the funding system.
I oppose government funding of private expression. My preference would be that UVA fund no student-run publications. It was impossible for me to achieve that at the time.
So my friends and I sued to be allowed a fair share of the student publication fund - I was suing to gain access to a system I didn't think should exist. Eventually we one in the Supreme Court.
The alternatives facing me were 1) accept the negative consequences of the system, including funding speech that was downright hostile towards me and watching certain forms of expression get an artificial boost or 2) demand access to that system.
I chose the second, and it was perfectly consistent with my beliefs, even though I would have preferred another course of action entirely.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Let's change it up a little from "gifts" to campaign contributions. If a candidate thinks it is bad for society to allow certain types of campaign contributions, should he deprive himself of those contributions while his opponents do not?
quote:The tort reformers' claim is that the modifications to actions as a whole cost more than the benefits. I'm not taking a position on that right now, but the point is that they - as much as everyone else in society - bear those costs. To deprive themselves of any chance of a benefit while they are bearing those costs is not something they need to do to not be hypocritical. They object to a particular divvying up of risk and compensation. They can't opt out of the downside, so why should they opt out of the upside when it occurs?
The downside of higher insurance costs and any other financial burden we all supposedly share as a result of punitive damages being a part of a current tort system is much lower, for any specific individual, than the upside to a single person who recovers a substantial punitive damages.
While a large punitive damages award may, arguably (although I don’t personally believe this to be true), impose a large burden shared by all people in our society, the cost to any specific individual is relatively small.
Bork may not be able to opt out of the relatively small, personal downside. But Bork now chooses to opt into the relatively large, personal upside of a punitive damages claim, despite the large burden (downside) he believes it will impose on society as a whole.
quote:Let's change it up a little from "gifts" to campaign contributions. If a candidate thinks it is bad for society to allow certain types of campaign contributions, should he deprive himself of those contributions while his opponents do not? That would mean suffering a serious political handicap - facing all of the negative consequences of the existing policy but not taking advantage of the positive ones.
This is a system, not a single iteration.
Perhaps I would agree with your argument regarding campaign contributions (although I need to think about that some more). But the hypothetical scenario I offered – of a legislator accepting gifts from lobbyists – presents no issue to the legislator regarding his ability to compete with other legislators. The only thing a legislator who does not accept gifts from lobbyists misses out on is the benefit of the gift itself. But that is same thing the legislator would miss out on if he were successful in his efforts to render such gifts illegal.
quote:This is not hypocritical because he objects to a system for allocating art between museums. That system not only affects what is in government museums but also what is in private museums. Thus, the system has a direct impact on the availability of art to him. Were he to deny himself the art in the government museums, he would be taking the bad consequences - which he cannot avoid - and getting nothing good out of it.
But in the Bork situation, the bad consequences (to him personally) of the current system are far outweighed by the good consequences of the punitive damages award.
Let’s look at my dog fighting hypothetical. Assume that dog fighting is legal. Assume also that a person is an outspoken opponent of dog fighting because it is wrong and bad for society. Alternatively, try gambling: assume that a person is an outspoken critic of gambling and casinos because of their social ills.
Would you agree that such a person would be hypocritical if he or she attended dog fights or gambled at casinos?
How is this any different from what Bork is doing?
You may argue that Bork simply is using the only system available to him to seek redress for his injuries. But as I explained above, Bork’s personal share of the perceived cost on society imposed by punitive damages awards is far lower than a punitive damages award he receives. The relative difference in cost and benefit renders him hypocritical because he is “taking” a lot more than he is “giving,” and yet he personally believes (or has in the past proclaimed) that the “taking” in this case is bad for society.
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Let's change it up a little from "gifts" to campaign contributions. If a candidate thinks it is bad for society to allow certain types of campaign contributions, should he deprive himself of those contributions while his opponents do not?
Yup. His actions would show him to be a hypocrite and a liar. It would send the message that he thinks it's bad for everyone else, but not for him.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The flaw in your reasoning arises from not adequately addressing what his belief actually is. You've gone from "punitive awards should be abolished" to "every instance of punitive awards is wrong" without justification. More detail follows.
quote:The downside of higher insurance costs and any other financial burden we all supposedly share as a result of punitive damages being a part of a current tort system is much lower, for any specific individual, than the upside to a single person who recovers a substantial punitive damages.
Not when adjusted by the probability that a loss will occur. You might as well say that the premiums for insurance are lower, for any specific individual, than the upside to a single person who recovers a substantial payout for a loss.
quote:Bork may not be able to opt out of the relatively small, personal downside. But Bork now chooses to opt into the relatively large, personal upside of a punitive damages claim, despite the large burden (downside) he believes it will impose on society as a whole.
So? Again, Bork is arguing that current system should be changed. He can't change the system - he's part of it.
quote:But in the Bork situation, the bad consequences (to him personally) of the current system are far outweighed by the good consequences of the punitive damages award.
Again, you need to point out how this matters.
quote:Let’s look at my dog fighting hypothetical. Assume that dog fighting is legal. Assume also that a person is an outspoken opponent of dog fighting because it is wrong and bad for society.
Which is it: wrong, or bad for society? Those are two different things. Bork is a critic of a particular way of allocating costs in society. They SYSTEM as a whole is, to Bork, wrong. It's not that people asking for punitive damages is wrong; it's that the system allowing punitive damages is wrong. (Again, to him.)
If he thinks anyone who asks for punitive damages is stealing, then he is, by his definition, attempting to steal. But you haven't come close to demonstrating that this is how he views it.
You keep focusing on the behavior. To demonstrate hypocrisy, you need to focus on his belief. What is his belief about punitive damages? Are they immoral, or are they a suboptimum system of cost allocation?
quote:Alternatively, try gambling: assume that a person is an outspoken critic of gambling and casinos because of their social ills.
Let's try gambling. Suppose one thinks the lottery is bad for society. Should one not attend public universities that receive lottery funds? The payout is huge to such a student. Should he refuse a gift from a lottery winner?
What if the lottery funds go into the general fund, reducing his tax burden by a significant amount. Should he turn back the money?
quote:How is this any different from what Bork is doing?
Because you haven't demonstrated that Bork thinks there is something evil or immoral about the simple act of suing for punitive damages.
It's very possible that Bork simply thinks the current system allows too many abusive suits and that regulation of such things is too difficult to justify punitive damages. In this case, not every act of punitive damages is wrong, but allowing them allows too many abuses. Presumable, Bork does not think his suit is an abuse. Therefore he's not conflicting with his own beliefs.
quote:You may argue that Bork simply is using the only system available to him to seek redress for his injuries. But as I explained above, Bork’s personal share of the perceived cost on society imposed by punitive damages awards is far lower than a punitive damages award he receives. The relative difference in cost and benefit renders him hypocritical because he is “taking” a lot more than he is “giving,” and yet he personally believes (or has in the past proclaimed) that the “taking” in this case is bad for society.
You are assuming that the cost of his particular taking outweighs the benefit of his particular taking.
Let's assume Bork thinks one third of all punitive damage awards have equal cost and benefit, and two thirds have greater cost than benefit. If he doesn't believe his complaint is one of the latter two thirds, your analysis doesn't apply at all.
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Let's change it up a little from "gifts" to campaign contributions. If a candidate thinks it is bad for society to allow certain types of campaign contributions, should he deprive himself of those contributions while his opponents do not?
Yes.
Why?
You know, I added quite a bit of analysis to this example. Would you care to address it?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, the basic disagreement here seems to be as follows.
Joe says that the System of X is wrong, but does X.
Does that make him a hypocrite?
You say, "no. Joe thinks the system is wrong, not X" (and until the system changes, X is fair game).
Those who disagree say, "Yes. The costs of the System of X are accrued by the wealthy, like Joe. So Joe is against it. However when Joe can gain the benefits of X, he is for it. That is Hyprocracy."
Me, I'm not a dogmatic absolutist, so I understand a bit of relativistic hypocracy. I don't find fault in what Mr. Bork did, though I think if he would have refused to do it, he would have come out on higher moral ground.
My question is on the costs of Tort Reform. I see a lot of talk about the costs of, Insurance, Litigation, and Legal fees. What I don't see is the savings and costs of actual product and service improvements.
The famed "Hot Coffee" case of McDonalds resulted in an improved Coffee being made at McDonalds. Dangerous and deadly products have been fixed or removed from society, creating a safer and more productive work force, because of the threat that punitive lawsuits will be more expensive than the costs of safety improvements.
In other words, next time the Yale Club went to the extra expense of setting up the stairs with railing leading to the speakers podium/stage, and no others in the future were injured.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But why should they? Demanding that people who desire political or legal reform live as if the reform had already happened is nor a tenable position.
Because the conditions that make the behavior desirable to change by law either exist or they don't, regardless of what the law says. And someone who says a behavior is morally or culturally undesirable but commits that behavior anyway strongly implies either that those conditions do not truly exist or that their case should be an exception.
To most citizens, there are relatively few options to address a perceived cultural wrong; refusing to partake in it is generally the first. When someone who has a public presence and a greater ability to address such an issue fails to do so, it's noteworthy, and quite reasonably so.
I'm not demanding Bork do anything. He's free to do whatever he wants, including taking advantage of the legal system he criticizes. If he fails to live up to what he professes is the preferred standard, that's noteworthy. What's untenable is the suggestion that the pundits are responsible for that.
If one was a white landowner in apartheid-era South Africa, saying one was against the system while taking advantage of the benefits thereof would go over about as well. Yes, one could say it was legal at the time. Yes, one could claim that one didn't see any reason not to seize the same advantages that others of your class did. And then one should be prepared to take the lumps for it.
quote: Further, the accusation of double standards is quite simply not supported by behavior in line with the current system but not the preferred one. Your specific criticism was that Bork was suggesting a different standard of behavior for others than for himself. It's not true. What we have here is an example of Bork holding himself to the same standard of behavior in this regard as everyone else. Without some indication that he would demand an exception for his punitive damages after reform, your accusation is unsupported by the incident it was made in response to.
What we have is someone acting as though the standards he would see set are irrelevant in the present system.
If Bork wants to trade public prestige and the appearance of integrity for the possibility of punitive monetary compensation, that's his right.
But we haven't been presented any case that it isn't equally right to exercise one's own right to jeer him for doing so.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because the conditions that make the behavior desirable to change by law either exist or they don't, regardless of what the law says
I'd like to see you demonstrate that. Let's simplify: if I think the three point shot ruined the game of basketball, should I not take three point shots when I play?
quote:And someone who says a behavior is morally or culturally undesirable but commits that behavior anyway strongly implies either that those conditions do not truly exist or that their case should be an exception.
No one on this thread has come close to showing that Bork thinks every instance of seeking punitive damages is morally undesirable. No one.
This is the premise everyone starts from, yet they haven't demonstrated at all that it's true.
If that premise is not true, then Bork is not doing something he thinks is wrong. Therefore he's not a hypocrite.
quote:What we have is someone acting as though the standards he would see set are irrelevant in the present system.
No, what he have here is a poster (you) assuming you know what his standards are based on a desired policy outcome. There are lots of ways to get to the policy outcome "we should do away with punitive damages" without the premise "punitive damages are immoral."
quote:If one was a white landowner in apartheid-era South Africa, saying one was against the system while taking advantage of the benefits thereof would go over about as well. Yes, one could say it was legal at the time. Yes, one could claim that one didn't see any reason not to seize the same advantages that others of your class did. And then one should be prepared to take the lumps for it.
You seem to be laboring under the illusion that there is only one reason to want to change the law. If one thinks slavery is immoral, then owning slaves, even if legal, is hypocritical. If one thinks the tax rate should be higher on corporations, the owner of a small corporation is not a hypocrite for not donating the difference between the current rate and your desired rate to the government.
There's no nuance at all in your analysis of Bork's position. "He's against it. Therefore he must think it immoral. Therefore he's a hypocrite for doing it." It's simplistic analysis, and it's being used by pundits to score points they couldn't score if they accurately represented the views.
quote:If he fails to live up to what he professes is the preferred standard, that's noteworthy. What's untenable is the suggestion that the pundits are responsible for that.
What the pundits - and you - are responsible for is repeatedly stating that Bork thinks the act of seeking punitive damages is immoral without demonstrating that this is the case. What the pundits - and you - are responsible for is a gross oversimplification of the issue. It is this gross oversimplification of the issue that makes it appear hypocritical, because the belief he is accused of not living up to is being misrepresented. You can't make your case without "Bork thinks every act of seeking punitive damages is immoral."
quote:If Bork wants to trade public prestige and the appearance of integrity for the possibility of punitive monetary compensation, that's his right.
If you want to repeatedly misrepresent his position, that's your right, I suppose.
quote:But we haven't been presented any case that it isn't equally right to exercise one's own right to jeer him for doing so.
It might be "right" in the sense that it's protected under the 1st amendment. But it's certainly not right as in accurate. Your whole analysis depends on statements about Bork's position that you haven't supported.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
"Courts are now meccas for every conceivable unanswered grievance or perceived injury. Juries dispense lottery-like windfalls, attracting and rewarding imaginative claims and far-fetched legal theories." -Trial Lawyers and Other Closet Federalists, Wash. Times, March 9, 1995.
I think seeking an award in excess of a million dollars could easily be seen as a "lottery-like windfall" such as Bork criticizes.
But it seems we're likely to convince one another on this point, so perhaps it would be prudent to agree to disagree.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think seeking an award in excess of a million dollars could easily be seen as a "lottery-like windfall" such as Bork criticizes.
Not without an analysis of his actual damages. Besides m^2's story, I personally know two other people who developed serious injuries from accidents that did not impair them for several days but that kept them out of work for a significant length of time - one of them for an entire school year.
Depending on income, lost salary could make up the bulk of the million.
Maybe it doesn't. I don't know. But you don't know either.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
