NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) had a bizarre encounter yesterday when a man dressed only in a bra and panties rushed them near Black Lives Matter Square and the area claimed earlier as the “Black House Autonomous Zone.” Mitchell immediately asked “where’s the police” and Norton added “where’s the police when you need them?” It is a question that many of us have been asking D.C. officials for weeks as police have stood by and watched statues destroyed and defaced around the city. This week, D.C. Chief of Police Peter Newsham stated that his department has made the “tactical decision” not to intervene as certain statues have been torn down in front of them. I have been highly critical of both this destruction and the failure of D.C. officials to act, including the iconic bust of George Washington on my own campus at George Washington University.
Thankfully no one was injured in this encounter:
The answer to the question however is equally troubling. Police are often around when violence and destruction occurs in these protests.
The question came up when reporters asked Newsham why officers stood around as mere pedestrians on Friday night as a mob pulled down the statue of Albert Pike in Judiciary Square. There have been good-faith calls for the removal of the statue, including by Norton. I have participated in this debate for years on determining what public art should be removed and what standards we should apply to the preservation of historical monuments, including a discussion organized by the Smithsonian Institution a few years back. Some monuments should be removed but this should be done with the consent and deliberation of the communities. Indeed, such acts hold greater meaning when done through legitimate and consensual means. This is not part of that debate, this is destruction by mobs who unilaterally determine what public art will be allowed and what will be destroyed.
After a mob was allowed to attach ropes and work to pull down the statue of Andrew Jackson, there was a belated response from federal and district officers. The statue however was defaced and was only saved from toppling by its sheer size. Media reported that Mayor Muriel Bowser and her office declined any comment on the mob scene that was scene on every network. That was what one might call a “tactical political decision.”
The “tactical decision” made by the Newsham is a convenient and widely used approach around the country. Leaders are allowing art to be destroyed rather than confront these mobs — not on the inherent value of the monuments but the right of society to make such decisions as a whole. This is nothing new. Such tactical decisions have been made by universities for years as they watched their art destroyed without any action or discipline. At the same time, police have been ordered to give mobs free range in destroying public art. Even when arrests are made, prosecutors have dropped charges under pressure from the public.
This same tactical decision has been made in other cities by leaders. Just yesterday, a legislator was attacked and sent to the hospital for taking a picture of the destruction. Both journalists and pedestrians have also been attacked for filming such scenes by protesters. Democratic senator Tim Carpenter told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he was beaten after taking a photo last night as two statues being toppled.
Lance Veeser@lanceveeserI believe this is State Senator Tim Carpenter. Minutes earlier he told us the protesters assaulted him. Then he collapsed walking towards the Capitol. We called paramedics. An ambulance is here now.
Tim Carpenter@TimCarpenterMKEI took this pic- it got me assaulted & beat up. Punched/kicked in the head, neck, ribs. Maybe concussion, socked in left eye is little blurry, sore neck & ribs. 8-10 people attacked me. Innocent people are going to get killed. Capitol locked- stuck in office.Stop violence nowPlz!
The protesters tore down the statue of Col. Christian Heg, who fought and died during the Civil War on the Union side
As noted earlier, the spectrum of action from cities and universities seems to range from deafening silence to cringing compliance in the face of such destruction. At the University of Oregon, famous statues of the Pioneer and Mother Pioneer were torn down. The University condemned the destruction and then promptly promised that the statues would be carted away and not returned.
Thus, the answer to D.C. Delegate Norton’s question is that the police is often present, but remain mere pedestrians by design. Call it “tactical” or consensual, but destruction of public art and historical monuments is occurring with the acquiescence of the city leaders.
These little white Antifa punk “domestic terrorists” are ‘most’ terrifying simply for the fact that they are utterly brainwashed stupid dum sh*t mother f’ers. That is the danger. The Democrats, BLM, Barack Obama’s Organizing For Action “organizer traineees” etc are all about the dummest white rich kids this country has seen trying to feel good about themselves b/c they are fighting for African Americans and against racism???? No. they are not. Let’s not forget that Hillary Clinton’s former VP running mate, Senator Tim Kaine’s son is one of them. Shame on you Tim Kaine. And thank god America did not have to endure the likes of your white trash Antifa jerk face son as part of the Second Family. We thank god every day for President Donald J. Trump.
Let’s not forget that Hillary Clinton’s former running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine’s own son is a member of Antifa. We thank god every day that America did not have to endure the white trash punk son of Sen. Tim Kaine as part of the Second Family. Once again, the choice of Tim Kaine as VP proves Hillary Clinton’s incredibly poor judgment yet again. We thank god every day for President Donald J. Trump.
https://www.usapoliticstoday.org/democrat-tim-kaines-son-antifa/
We got it the first time. The link would have been enough. It’s Friday night, though, so maybe there’s some EtOH in the mix…
“We thank god…”
Who’s “we”??
OT: As the Ukraine hoax (and others) against Trump and other people unravels Joe Biden will end up in unplanned spotlight.
—–
Most voters say Biden used vice presidency to financially benefit his family and friends, poll finds
The poll found 53% of U.S. voters think it’s likely Joe Biden used his position as Vice President to benefit family and friends. Just 29% consider it unlikely.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/polling/poll-finds-most-voters-say-biden-used-vice-presidency-financially-benefit?utm_source=breaking-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter#article
If I was a cop and I didn’t have qualified immunity, I wouldn’t be a cop very long.
Without qualified immunity the police have enormous protections.
All qualified immunity means is that if a govenrment actor egregiously violates someones constitutional or civil rights,
And no other govenrment actor has done the same precise violation before, no matter how obviously egregious the violation, they can not be sued.
Without Qalified immunity the burden of proof would be on the plantif and it would be high and most claims would be dissmissed in summary judgement.
The other thing that would happen is that local government would have to insure themselves and their officers.
“The other thing that would happen is that local government would have to insure themselves and their officers.”
John, think of what happened at the height of the malpractice problem for physicians.
I am a professional. I carry malpractice.
Regardless, whether police are insured or not, if there is no qualified immunity,
then like anyone else in the world they are subject to torts claims when their actions harm others.
The fact that courts need to decide torts claims using facts not feelings does not alter the importance of torts.
I am libertarain.
I am opposed to all government regulation.
Torts is the means by which we “regulate” conduct that is not criminal and does not involve a contract.
Regardless, you can not oppose regulation, without having a remedy when conduct results in real harm.
We carry insurance on our cars – because if we drive have an accident and harm another – we are responsible.
We must make whole those we harm.
In “libertopia”, there are no regulations, no administrative law courts.
But the torts courts are very busy.
“I am a professional. I carry malpractice.”
John, do you pay a couple of hundred thousand a year for malpractice insurance? In some areas of the country no physicians were available for certain high risk procedures. People had to be flown elsewhere. Do we want to make it so that decent cops decide that being a policeman is too much of a risk for them and their families so that the pool of good cops dries up. The are elements of sovereign immunity that can be used by States and laws that can affect judgements. I would have to listen to a debate on the entire subject before taking a fixed position. Acting otherwise is quite dangerous so I am skeptical of your quick conclusions.
“you can not oppose regulation, without having a remedy when conduct results in real harm.”
Real harm can managed by the state rather than by the individual policeman. I think the biggest problem with individual policemen is the union that can prevent bad officers from being fired.
Can you name an instance ever where a market problem existed, and the government did not step in and fix it, and the problem stayed forever. ?
I am not worried about Doctor’s or police malpractice.
Those are self correcting problems. You just need to be patient.
My profession (architecture) had insurance rates Skyrocket briefly after a huge award – the copley square boston tower.
There are far fewer doctors than architects, and an error like that dwarfs what surgeons faced.
The problem was solved because new insurance companies rushed into the market because rates were so high.
Put simply the laws of supply and demand worked.
Regardless we have had versions of this discussion before.
You are unwilling to trust the laws of supply and demand.
But they work.
Sometimes they take a little time. but they always work.
“My profession (architecture) had insurance rates Skyrocket briefly after a huge award – the copley square boston tower.”
Were your rates for years climbing from astronomical rates to premiums of $100,000-$200,000+ and rising for inadequate insurance protection? Physicians stopped doing certain procedures that were too risky in order to lower premiums. That meant many patients suffered. Maybe architectural risks could have been reduced as well by not including elevators and creating 20 story walk-ups. There were communities that had to fly patients from one hospital to another because of those malpractice rates. Physicians are well paid and could even work around the insurance problems they faced, but the police are not in the same economic category and when they change their method of behavior that can cost them their lives, not just their money. Face it, our markets in our society can never be totally free at least in our lifetimes and in the lives of our children, grandchildren and great grand children. There has to be room to bend so that society doesn’t suddenly snap. That, I believe, is what Hayek recognized and you don’t.
You mention that the total amount of architecture rates was greater than the rates physicians faced but physicians during the height of malpractice rates were individuals not true corporations and individually they were paying those high amounts. I very much doubt that there is a reasonable comparison between the two.
“You are unwilling to trust the laws of supply and demand. But they work.Sometimes they take a little time. but they always work.”
John, there are always failures on both sides of the issue. One of the problems you do not consider is that the individual has a life span and though the marketplace probably always works better the life span interferes as the individual that is alive wants to see some of the results. Without those results government instability is bound to occur. That instability also creates market failures. Thus maybe that zigzagged road can be straightened in 3 to 6 months rather than 3-6 generations.
You make lots of speculation about insurance and insurance problems and yet you fail to consider that the laws of supply and demand work.
Prices spike in various things all the time. And then they correct.
Yes, malpractice for architects became completely unafordable. Many firms briefly went bare.
And other companies entered the market and prices tanked.
If insurance rates go to high and doctors quit doing some procedures, then the market will have to adjust.
There are many ways this can occur, patients can waive liability claims. Doctors can rise prices.
The courts can weigh the legal liability standards.
What is not needed is laws, regulation.
“You make lots of speculation about insurance and insurance problems and yet you fail to consider that the laws of supply and demand work.”
It’s reality.
” can waive liability claims. ”
That is very iffy. Many physicians went bare. You never did answer how high the malpractice rates went for architects.
“Many physicians went bare. ”
Many architects did to.
“You never did answer how high the malpractice rates went for architects.”
Depended on the firm. Ours quadrupled for 1 year and then more insurance companies started to offer architectural malpractice.
But our rates were extra-ordinarily low as we were a medium sized firm with 40 years history, and only 1 small claim paid in that time.
And almost no claims filed.
But there were firms paying rates as high or higher than doctors.
“Ours quadrupled for 1 year and then more insurance companies started to offer architectural malpractice.”
What was the dollar amount? The risk must not have been that high because insurance companies came in to compete. That is quite different than what happened to medical malpractice in many states. The insurer’s fled.
Obstetrics got so hard hit that many of the practices gave up on obstetrics and pregnant women had difficulty finding obstetricians. Many had to use midwives. Not only that, but the obstetricians got so busy that many of their patients were delivered by midwives and sometimes nurses. In some areas they had to airlift critically ill patients in fields like neurosurgery to other hospitals and people died on their way.
Do you really think architectural malpractice insurance was the same as medical malpractice insurance?
“medium sized [architecture] firm with 40 years history, and only 1 small claim paid in that time.”
In the areas under discussion doctors multispecialty groups on average had at least one to two suits per doctor and maybe more. It was a very rare physician that was never sued.
Do you really think architectural malpractice insurance was the same as medical malpractice insurance?
The entire medial field is more highly regulated.
It is much harder for insurance companies to enter the market.
Regardless the cost of insurance is always based on the risk or atleast will get there quickly.
That is as it should be.
“Obstetrics got so hard hit that many of the practices gave up on obstetrics and pregnant women had difficulty finding obstetricians. Many had to use midwives. Not only that, but the obstetricians got so busy that many of their patients were delivered by midwives and sometimes nurses. In some areas they had to airlift critically ill patients in fields like neurosurgery to other hospitals and people died on their way.”
So ?
C19 hit the country and we screamed about shortages of PPE and other things. Ultimately all needs were met – and quickly.
All the government futzing was just theater
“The entire medial field is more highly regulated.
It is much harder for insurance companies to enter the market.”
No, in some markets it was hard to leave. The government tried to stop them from leaving by telling them they would lose the right to sell other insurance products. It’s hard to actuarily figure out a rate when the insurance premium equals a practice’s income. Remember, this is not now. This was during the malpractice crisis.
“So ?”
If you don’t mind people dying and not getting treated I guess “So?” might be a response.
The primary factor according to studies I have found correcting the “malpractice crisis” – and there were several.
Was judges and juries reigning in awards.
Because people came to realize that higher malpractice awards resulted in higher service costs.
‘The primary factor according to studies I have found correcting the “malpractice crisis” – and there were several.
Was judges and juries reigning in awards. Because people came to realize that higher malpractice awards resulted in higher service costs.”
There is little question in my mind that under a self pay system most malpractice issues and most of defensive medicine would disappear. The treatment will no longer be an MRI used for defensive reasons rather ‘ I can do an MRI for the following reasons’ and the patient will accept the costs or not. That by itself creates a new standard for what is considered malpractice. Quite quickly the patients and medical community will work together to give the patient what the patient wants not what a third party is willing to pay for.
No one should assume such a policy would mean no one was or was not insured. Insurer’s can meet whatever needs are wanted within the public’s budget but it means that thriftiness will pay off for the consumer.
One does not want to totally end malpractice or have it no fault. Malpractice protects the good physician from the bad one and keeps standards higher.
“Do you really think architectural malpractice insurance was the same as medical malpractice insurance?”
All insurance is the same – it is about distributing and pricing risk.
All deviations today are caused by government.
It Doctors and Architects are not fundamentally the same – that is because of government.
Just to be clear the risks are not identical. I do not think that any medical malpractice claim has come close to the cost of replacing the entire facade of the Copley square tower in Boston – and the personal injury claims from falling sheets of glass.
An architect has the potential for creating a far larger claim than a doctor. But the entire medium sized practice I was part of built 2800 projects in 55 years. And most of those involved 18m of professional review before construction and another 18m during.
Our risks are larger, but much more likely to get deteected. Doctors have much smaller risks, but move faster, and deal with much more patients.
A lone surgeon also bills more than a 25 person architectural practice. or it did when surgeons were sole practitioners.
Today surgeons tend to be paid salaries – their malpractice comes from the business income not their wages,
But their wages are lower.
The principle in a 50 person architectural firm makes about 250K/year Lead architects about 100K.
These are very experienced people at the peak of their carreer.
Pretty much the most mundane surgeon makes 300K – and someone else covers their malpractice.
Specialized surgeons make 700K+ – that is salary, not business income.
You never did provide how much insurance premiums cost for architects.
I beleive I did but why does it matter ?
In relation to income – Architectural malpractice was more expensive than that of Surgeons.
Regardless the only metric that is relevant is the ratio of the price to the risk.
“You never did provide how much insurance premiums cost for architects I beleive I did but why does it matter ?
I didn’t see it and now you are trying to convince me of something rather than providing a number. You don’t have to. It doesn’t matter. I brought a number at one time to point out why certain areas of the country suddenly found themselves without the appropriate physician and that led to death. It was merely to point out that when dealing with any group one has to consider the individual within the group and how your decisions impact them. The police which was really the question under discussion are already over stressed. They don’t need more. Stress kills in more than one way.
Allan,
” Many had to use midwives.”
Why is this a problem?
“Why is this a problem?”
Women didn’t have the choice. Babies have been delivered long before obstetricians existed but there is no question that obstetricians are at a higher level than the midwife. All difficult deliveries are eventually managed by obstetricians.
No, it is not a good idea to lack obstetrician availability.
Allan – I have watch 4 seasons of “Call the Midwife” and I am sure I can deliver a baby now. 🙂
“Women didn’t have the choice. Babies have been delivered long before obstetricians existed but there is no question that obstetricians are at a higher level than the midwife. All difficult deliveries are eventually managed by obstetricians.
No, it is not a good idea to lack obstetrician availability.”
Women do not have the choice of having babies delivered by angels either
We have liberty by right. Free will, free choice is not a promise that you will have whateve choices you want, or that they will have a cost that you like.
That something is not a good idea is irrelevant.
You keep saying I am demanding perfection.
Women have been having babies for 150K years.
There will likely be ways better than todays obstetricians in the future – those are not rights today, nor will they ever be.
Even a midwife is not a right.
John I don’t know what your response is all about since I was answering Prairie’s question:
>”Allan,
>>” Many had to use midwives.”
>Why is this a problem?”
I provided my opinion. Do you think that it is a good thing not to have an obstetrician available especially when some deliveries require advanced knowledge or surgery?
Rights are what the government grants, and if that is birth in a hot tub in Hawaii, that’s a woman’s right.
“Rights are what the government grants, and if that is birth in a hot tub in Hawaii, that’s a woman’s right.”
Anon, My comment was “Women didn’t have the choice.” and that was my complaint so one has to be pretty stupid to think I was denying choice.
Allan,
I agree that having an OB available if a birth needs it is important, as is having a choice.
Midwives are excellent under almost all circumstances, but an OB backup is good to have just in case.
My choice is an obstetrician. One family member had significant problems because they used a midwife. It shouldn’t have happend and revealed problems within that group. I am not drawing conclusions. I am only stating my preference.
We had a pediatric clinic in my area decades ago. It had so many disasters it was forced to close. Then again I note a NP office that has been open for years.
I choose M.D. plus a number of other factors. Anyone else can choose whatever factors they wish.
Allan,
I am sorry one of your family members had a bad experience with a midwife. Besides my firstborn, my other three children were delivered by midwives in hospitals. They gave me excellent care.
All professional liability is personal.
As an architect – it I work for a firm I am insured by that Firm – just as a doctor is.
But should a malpractice claim occur it will be against the firm AND me personally.
As a professional, my personal assets are always at risk for a malpractice claim – not matter if I am insured,
That is the same for every profession I am aware of that carries malpractice insurance.
Architects as an example are legal liable for malpractice claims for buildings they have designed and built for as long as they are alive.
My insurance is on a “claims made” basis. i.e. I buy insurance to cover me for the next year.
But if I retire – I am still subject to claims until I die. And typically I am not insured after I retire.
This is much less true for a doctor.
If I built a building 40 years ago, and the contractor used an Asbestos Containing Material I can be sued today.
How many doctors get sued for surgeries they performed 40 years ago ?
John, my example was trying to show what happened at the peak of the malpractice crisis. Today physicians are owned so the employer covers the cost of malpractice just like I presume occurs with most architects woring for a corporation.
You are trying to compare risk between two different professions. That was not the point of my comment. I was trying to demonstrate how the threat of malpractice impacted the medical profession in certain areas causing patients to have to be flown elsewhere and causing certain medical procedures to disappear from the market even though they were better than the ones that were left. It impacted costs not just from the millions in settlements but from physicians spending horrendous amounts of money just for defensive medicine. Defensive medicine caused many patients an inability to afford medical care. If you think that was acceptable I’ll accept that is what you believe.
Pediatricians can be liable for a long time and there is not set time that malpractice of physicians ends.
If you want to open a different topic comparing the problems of physician malpractice and architect malpractice I will be glad to oblige but I am not willing to do the leg work to show how much more frequently physicians are sued than architects and how much higher the defense and settlements are. In some communities it was rare to find a physician that wasn’t sued at least once in his career. (I so happen to have some proprietary knowledge regarding the insurance side of professional malpractice.)
Malpractice insurance fundimentally covers PEOPLE, not businesses.
You are correct that it is typically paid by a business, but there is no corporate limit that protects against malpractice claims.
I would further note that during the insurance “crisis” few states allowed architects and engineers to incorporate. They were sole proprieterships and partnerships. Even today most states have special professional corporations with slightly different rules.
Regardless, a doctor or engineer or architect can not incorporate to avoid liability for malpractice.
And particularly for architects and engineers that liability has a very long life – whether you are insured or not.
“You are trying to compare risk between two different professions.” Insurance companies do not care about the profession. They care about the risk. All insurance of any kind is priced by risk.
“I was trying to demonstrate ” … What ? that there is some instability and volatility in life ? Absolutely. Markets adjust. You noted some of the temporary adjustments labeling them as problems.
The English go to India for medical care to get arround rules within the UK.
People worldwide go to Brazil for a variety of plastic surgery because it is cheap and high quality.
I do not care about the problems you note and the adjustments that were made.
That is what markets do. I would further note that no matter what the cost impact of some spike in malpractice claims – that impact will be short term. Markets can not correct instantly. But they always correct faster than law, and they continue to improve over time – law does not.
The laws of supply and demand work – always, even for malpractice claim spikes.
There is absolutely zero possibility that the cost of a service that has both a large supply and a large demand will remain high for very long just because of malpractice costs.
And in the unlikely circumstances that it did, then govenrment intervention would not help.
Real malpractice – the real costs of actual people being harmed is a real cost and should be paid. If there truly are massive numbers of legitimate large claims – then that is as it should be. But massive numbers of false or overvalued claims will not last long.
But government stepping in just passes the cost on to those harmed.
If a police officer causes you real harm – shouldn’t you be made whole ?
If malpractice claims drive up the costs of insurance and the cost of policing to tax payers.
That creates exactly the incentive we WANT to improve policing.
Probably every other reform that i want would happen without a single law change by eliminating qualified immuntity.
Further instead of politicians deciding what reforms should be imposed by law.
Police insurance and local govenrment would be incentivized to figure out what works to reduce claims.
No one is smarter than markets.
“Malpractice insurance fundimentally covers PEOPLE, not businesses.”
John, Professional malpractice and corporate malpractice are two different things and having one doesn’t exclude the other, however, corporate malpractice can increase the coverage where the coverage amounts were too low because insurers were fleeing from not to those areas.
I hope you don’t get lost in the legalese in this discussion because the only reason I brought up corporate status for physicians was to increase coverage that was deficient which in some states was beneficial since one can offer policy limits and if not accepted can end further liability for the physician.
“What ? that there is some instability and volatility in life ? Absolutely. Markets adjust.”
They are not adjusting in a market that is already a free market. In healthcare they are adjusting in a market CONSIDERABLY controlled by the state. Therefore it is reasonable to compromise and try and move in a positive direction rather than only moving if it is 100% one way.
“What ? that there is some instability and volatility in life ? Absolutely. Markets adjust.”
Short term is relative. And if your definition doesn’t meet the needs of society there is revolution and revolutions usually move in a totalitarian direction. (That is what we are seeing today,)
“The laws of supply and demand work – always”
It aways works for the bean counters that are willing to wait millennia, but it frequently doesn’t work in all areas for the people alive today, tomorrow and the future up to the point that your Nirvana is realized (never).
“If a police officer causes you real harm – shouldn’t you be made whole ?”
THIS IS RIDICULOUS. If a police officer, doctor or architect causes your death you can never be made whole. Your entire premise is wrong.
“Professional malpractice and corporate malpractice are two different things”
General business insurance is generally not called malpractice. But i do not want to fight over semantics.
Nothing we are talking about is ordinary business insurance. I do not recall what the general umbrella insurance for government is called – we are not talking about that either.
Eliminating Qulaified immuntiy will lead to increased malpractice coverage for police officers.
That is a good thing. It means that municipalities will have to cover the costs of police misconduct. They will have a financial incentive to reduce it. That will result in broad efforts to reduce bad policing rather than narrow laws targeted at things like chokeholds.
Different forces will try different aproaches – some will work better than others, and slowly everyone will move to the most efective approaches. But the effort to improve will be endless – that is another good thing.
“General business insurance is generally not called malpractice.”
That is correct but in the years under discussion it was used in the same manner as malpractice insurance when the coverate was considered too low.
“Eliminating Qulaified immuntiy ”
I don’t know which direction I would take or how much immunity I would provide,if any. My discussion merely revolved around the point that I was open to both the market solution and the non market solution with the least possible effect on the marketplace. My sole purpose for this extended discussion was to demonstate that when individuals are placed in bad situations one might get bad results. You on the other hand were not considering the potential bad results . You provided your answer to a response to a malpractice situation that was killing patients “So?” I accept your respone but consider it terribly inadequate.
“All professional liability is personal.”
Of course it is, but that wasn’t what the conversation was about. The question was individual police liability and the downsides of having no limitations on suits in any of their various forms. Malpractice of physicians was a mechanism to highlight the problems involved when suits become uncontrollable.
During the malpractice crisis I believe most doctors weren’t working for hospitals and companies though they have gravitated in that direction for quite awhile likely not for the benefit of patients. Malpractice probably played a part in the conglomeration of the healthcare industry.
There is such a thing as tail end insurance.
“The question was individual police liability”
Should those actually harmed by police be made whole ?
Of Course.
“and the downsides of having no limitations on suits in any of their various forms.”
That is what the courts and markets are for.
Remember Qualified immunity is not absolute immunity.
We already know how tort claims against police work.
The awards are low – becuase the jury is taxpayers, and they know who pays the insurance.
“Malpractice of physicians was a mechanism to highlight the problems involved when suits become uncontrollable.”
Suits do not become uncontrollable.
For various reasons there are spikes in supply and demand, they ultimately self regulate.
“During the malpractice crisis I believe most doctors weren’t working for hospitals and companies though they have gravitated in that direction for quite awhile likely not for the benefit of patients.”
The single greatest factor destroying private medical practices has been ObamaCare,
Probably all of the top 10 factors have been government.
Except possibly that doctors today want to be high paid employees not entrepeneurs.
“There is such a thing as tail end insurance.”
Yup, so
“Should those actually harmed by police be made whole ?”
John, I will repeat my prior response to the similar statement made earlier.
THIS IS RIDICULOUS. If a police officer, doctor or architect causes your death you can never be made whole. Your entire premise is wrong.
“The single greatest factor destroying private medical practices has been ObamaCare,”
Though there is no question ObamaCare was a significant cause I don’t think the experts would agree with your arguments.
I’ll give an example that predated ObamaCare. Medicare fees for outpatient surgical centers can be half of what the fee paid is if performed in the hospital. If the hospital purchases the clinic and it is within a certain geographic distance then the fees paid are the same as the hospital fee.
Therefore the hospital can buy half the clinic at full price and recoup the money because in some cases that would double the fees. If the physicians are now paid by the hospital the hospital can split the difference of the higher reimbursement and it is possible for the physician to earn more than before.
Other things causing consolidation other than the nature of the doctors interring the profession. Government made physician practices so complex they had to band together to be able to afford hiring the personal now needed in order to practice medicine. Loads of other causes for consolidation outside of ObamaCare.
>>“There is such a thing as tail end insurance.”
>”Yup, so”
That was in response to your statement that one might not have malpractice coverage after retirement. I was just answering a need with a solution that you didn’t seem to recognize.
“THIS IS RIDICULOUS. If a police officer, doctor or architect causes your death you can never be made whole. Your entire premise is wrong.”
And yet we have wrongful death torts all the time.
Contra your claim it is NOT ridiculous. it is just impossible to acheive perfection.
Ford can not give the lives of those killed in Pinto crashes back. But it had to pay a great deal of money and the entire car industry has an incentive to do bette.r
““THIS IS RIDICULOUS. If a police officer, doctor or architect causes your death you can never be made whole. Your entire premise is wrong.” To which you answered:
“Should those actually harmed by police be made whole ?
Of Course”
Now you state “And yet we have wrongful death torts all the time.”
But your statement said “Of Course” those harmed should made whole. That is impossible once the person is dead and ridiculous as well. Leaving out or not addressing the operative phrase “Of Course” was not appropriate in serious debate. You can spin your answer any way you wish but it is riciulous to think a person who is killed or loses his life due to negligence can ever be made whole..
Aside from the possibility that you think “made whole” requires being “undead”, I have no idea what you are going on about.
Torts courts calculate the value of human lives all the time.
Even PPACA does it – at a far lower value than the courts.
“Aside from the possibility that you think “made whole”
Your black and white statement told us where you were going. You are looking for perfection which is the evil of good. Let us unwrap what you actually said:
““>>The question was individual police liability”
>Should those actually harmed by police be made whole ?
>Of Course.”
That is your idea of perfection but being made whole would mean the individual would have to be alive and perhaps have all his limbs intact. We are seldom if ever perfect and what we think are perfectly functioning entities such as marketplaces, they are not perfect either. That basically is what our whole lengthy discussion is about.good vs perfection of the marketplaces though recently you seem to be more willing to compromise.
I am aware of tail insurance.
Very few architects have it.
The good news is that it is very rare to sue retired professionals.
The bad news is that liability for buildings lasts much longer than births.
“I am aware of tail insurance. Very few architects have it. The good news is that it is very rare to sue retired professionals.”
It is not that rare to sue retired physicians. If they didn’t have tail insurance they sweated and in the period and place I am talking about tail insurance could cost over $200,000 or be totally unaffordable. The premium price lets you know the risk. That is why the data you have provided is close to meaningless. Compare premiums both for annual coverage or tail end and you have a much better idea of risk.
A physicans likelyhood of being sure declines very rapidly after they retire.
An architects is typically much lower than a physicians, He is also paid much less.
but his risk will continue much the same for the rest of his life
We are not comparing physicians and architects. We were discussing police and qualified immunity along with insurance. I brought up doctors for the sole reason to show how increasing stressors could cause dangerous changes so that we could apply that type of thinking to the police since I had a real example related to the discussion at hand.
John, one of my principles – and part of my nature – is working well with architects and maintaining a team approach as much as possible. I might question a specific detail, but never the vision, and always out of earshot of the client. We’d probably work well together if we didn’t start in on politics at a meeting with the client.
I do bridle at the contract and disclaimers on drawings which try to place responsibility for errors or oversights on the contractor – we are to bring them to your attention or own them, whether we see them or not. I get the responsibility to know the code and good practices and your profession’s reaction to the litigious nature of America, but the charge to us seems pretty open ended. In any case, other than that one anomalous lawyer client, to date I’ve avoided the legal nightmares.
Maybe, but I’m a contractor and AIA contracts lay it all on us, as do disclaimers on the drawings, and your structural work is subbed to engineers who carry insurance. I’m not blaming you, but your profession’s attorneys have worked this over pretty thoroughly to your benefit.
For the discussion, I’ve been sued once in 40+ years by an ambulance chaser to escape the last draw for work on his office.
“Doctors bury their mistakes, architects spec vines.”
“Maybe, but I’m a contractor”
Good for you.
I do not disagree with any of the rest of what you say – with one Caveat.
If something goes wrong on a building project, the architect is ALWAYS going to get sued. And is ALWAYS at the pinnacle of liability.
You mentioned that our structural engineers have insurance – true.
But you must sue us to get to them.
If someone falls into an elevator pit on a construction site – everyone with access to the site will get sued.
And the architect will get sued.
If you as contractor screwed up – it is alteast partly my fault as architect, because I was responsible to prevent you from screwing up.
Further you talk about drawings and specs and disclaimers. If I make the mistake of telling you HOW to do something, rather than what the results should be – it is my fault.
If any material I specify MIGHT be a problem – it is my fault.
I respect greatly most contractors, they are good people and do a good job. Over time I have come to trust most of the contractors I have worked with MORE than most of my competitors.
A good contractor and good architect work together to solve problems – because no building project is EVER trouble free.
but working together we can keep projects on schedule and meet budgets. If you have a problem and can offer me a solution that will provide the owner with the same quality they expected that will save money, save time or solve a problem – I am going to approve it.
i was a landscaper who did a bunch of stone work for a landscape architect who worked for Trump on one of his golf courses. Trump ripped him off mercilessly.
maybe that was his excuse for squeezing you too eh? sht like that rolls downhill
Was the landscaper free to decline the work ?
Did he continue to take further work from Trump ?
Did trump breach his contract ?
If so sue him.
If not this is just whining.
John, in construction the rule is you only pay for work in place, at which point an a..hole client like Trump has the power and knows it. The system fails at this point unless the amount is large enough to warrant a law suit, and even then a savvy a..hole like Trump will whittle you down to pennies on the dollar – suing is rarely a logical option for none payment. Your suggesting it is either Pollyannish or a dishonest excuse for your dishonorable leader who is unfortunately our president as well.
“John, in construction the rule is you only pay for work in place, at which point an a..hole client like Trump has the power and knows it. The system fails at this point unless the amount is large enough to warrant a law suit, and even then a savvy a..hole like Trump will whittle you down to pennies on the dollar – suing is rarely a logical option for none payment. Your suggesting it is either Pollyannish or a dishonest excuse for your dishonorable leader who is unfortunately our president as well.”
I have been in business all my life – construction is not unique. My mother’s family owned a small factory making bottle caps, that exists today. I have been on construction sites since i was 4. I have been part of the construction business since I was a teen. I worked for contractors while in college. I ran a 50+ persona architectural firm for 30 years. Today I have a practice doing commercial due diligence.
I have separately been in the computer business since the 70’s. I have been a software consultant for almost 50 years. I have also sold computers.
I have dealt with all kinds of clients.
If Trump was the type of person that you claim – I would have worked for him ONCE. Further, I would have made damn sure that everyone I know, knew he could not be trusted.
I can complain about the games many of my clients play. But You only get to cheat me ONCE. And that is very rare.
Further in a long lifetime of business – the crooks do not last.
I have told you that Trump keeps his promises.
That is exactly what I expected out of a business person.
We hear in Bolton’s book that Trump was about getting re-elected. Of course he was.
And the way you do that is to deliver on what you have promised.
Bolton’s bitching, as well as that of Mattis and numerous other Trump defections, and all the witnesses at the impeachment,
all fit the same theme – Trump was actually trying to keep the commitments he made to get elected
Bolton, Mattiss all the house witnesses make a case for a different foreign policy than Trump’s.
If you want to debate the merits of their different approaches – fine.
But Trump was elected to deliver a very specific foreign policy.
All these tell all books, all these Foriegn policy witnesses all said the same thing.
Trump did what he promised to voters not what we recommended.
That is what business people who wish to remain in business do.
John, if you have been involved in as many businesses as you claim then your suggestion to Hellvis is really BS. Yes, in large American cities an a..hole like Trump can hit a lot of people once in each field and do just fine. That’s how he got down to the Russians and Deutshe Bank as last resort financial backers and no longer builds anything. Hopefully the SC will rule to allow his financial records should be revealed and we will see better what he owes Putin. He does not keep his promises of course and as far the self described King of Debt ripping off subs, big and small, I hope you enjoy this article.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/
“John, if you have been involved in as many businesses as you claim then your suggestion to Hellvis is really BS.”
Nope, pretty much the opposite.
Further it is close to a tautology.
Free markets as VOLUNTARY. No one MUST exchange with a specific other person.
People do not engage in exchange expecting to get ripped off.
And in fact if actual rippoffs were not rare exchange would not occur and markets would collapse.
People only exhcnage because they have reasons to trust the other party.
The miracle of ebay is that it created a mechanism to trust people you never met.
You say you are a contractor – if you have been in business for any length of time.
You have been justified in your trust of the overwhelming majority of the people you have done business with – or you would be bankrupt.
While there are many ways to fail. All successes require that Trust prove justified.
“Yes, in large American cities an a..hole like Trump can hit a lot of people once in each field and do just fine. ”
If that were true it would be comonplace, and if it were common markets would cease to work.
Bernie Maddoff is unbeleivably rare.
“That’s how he got down to the Russians and Deutshe Bank as last resort financial backers and no longer builds anything.”
So you are saying that incredibly conservative DB (or even Russians) invested hundreds of millions without doing any due diligence ?
One of my markets is “due dilligence” involving buildings. If you own a $1000000 apartment building or a $3B tower, and you want to refinance (or insure) which happens typically about once every 7 years. The bank is going to hire someone like me to thoroughly inspect the building. In fact typically they hire separate teams. I do not as an example estimate the value of a building – appraisers do that.
But I check the condition of the building, the condition of mechanicals, code compliance, the projected maintanance costs.
I tell the bank whether the ower is caring for his building properly, and what the bank can expect will be the future costs for that building.
If the owners business plan can not sustain my projections – the bank will not loan money, or the insurance company will not write a policy.
Financial institutions are not typically reckless with nearly a billion dollars.
And DB is just about the lest reckless of all.
I have ZERO doubt DB did the equivalent of a financial anal probing of Trump before they lent him a dime.
The odds of your finding anything improper in Trump’s finances are zero.
Embarassing – maybe – and that is the whole point.
I do not expect SC to give anyone Trump’s financial records.
To do so they MUST have a credible allegation of a crime FIRST.
Not wishful thinking.
I have told you that false allegations reduce credibility – I expect SCOTUS to want evidence of a crime before they allow records released.
John, coming in on your argument about markets and I might note 2 things. You – and I – by virtue of licensing laws and by your definitions are using government force to limit the sellers in the design and build buildings market. If I hear you right, what counts in licensing is not the government protecting citizens from shoddy practices in a market to technical to expect they can discern on their own, but the brute force of limiting sellers so you and I can make a better living. Do I have that right?
I would also note that your religious belief in the near perfection of markets depends on your definition of what is the goal. If the freedom of business men is your goal, you’re probably right – assuming the businessman is not in a field like yours and mine which require licenses – but that is a goal not many would agree with. The rest of us – and I am a businessman with what what used to be called enlightened self-interest – recognize that the late 19th century, while good for industry and development, sucked for those in the factories and slums and those leaving the farms, i.e., most Americans.
“John, coming in on your argument about markets and I might note 2 things. You – and I – by virtue of licensing laws and by your definitions are using government force to limit the sellers in the design and build buildings market:
This stupid tripe. Absolutely correct and irrelevant. When government places immoral barriers to trade – you do what you must.
Those forced by the mafia to pay protection are not generally regarded as criminals.
But the mafia is.
This is also what is wrong with campaign finances laws.
It is not giving money to a political candidate – even in copious amounts that is immoral.
It is the politician giving favors – for ANY reason.
“If I hear you right, what counts in licensing is not the government protecting citizens from shoddy practices in a market to technical to expect they can discern on their own, but the brute force of limiting sellers so you and I can make a better living”
Again quit trying to read my mind. Even when you are approximately correct – it is still misrepresentative.
I still end up having to deal with your inaccuracies.
All govenrment licensining outside of CLEAR life safety areas is immoral, unconstitutional and improper.
Ti the extent that any form of licensing is legitimate it can only be in the life safety aspect.
Overall I think even life safety is better left to the market.
All govnerment action is force. It is legitimate if and only iff it is justifiable – and very few uses of force are justifiable.
I do not care about the motives for licensing. I do not care if your motives are altrusistic or vile.
I care whether the act itself is justified and the outcome is positive.
As an example the original motives for Minimum wages were racist. Today those advocating for them claim that advance racial justice.
The outcome of MW laws is racist.
“I would also note that your religious belief in the near perfection of markets depends on your definition of what is the goal. ”
The goal is the highest overall standard of living.
“If the freedom of business men is your goal, you’re probably right – assuming the businessman is not in a field like yours and mine which require licenses – but that is a goal not many would agree with. The rest of us – and I am a businessman with what what used to be called enlightened self-interest – recognize that the late 19th century, while good for industry and development, sucked for those in the factories and slums and those leaving the farms, i.e., most Americans.”
Individual freedom is also a goal.
I would note we are ALL businessmen. The claim that there is some distinct economic sphere is nonsense.
If you are a wage earner – you trade labor and skill for money.
When you buy things you trade money for goods and services.
You are a business, you are part of the market.
John, I am in a small city and we operate with subs on verbal contracts. You will get known if you are a rip off artist like Trump, a fact which was Hellvis’s point and which you try to avoid and paper over with ludicrous religious beliefs about how perfect a system we have because you can just kiss off that money and never do business with Trump again. Some people – probably not in your social group – can’t afford to write off $10k or less and also can’t afford an attorney and the time to go after it in court against an a..hole like Trump with an attorney on full time retainer for dealing with multiple schmucks.
You told Hellvis there was no problem – Trump wouldn’t do such a thing and if he did, his landscape architect had recourse. Well, the record is clear and his dishonesty on full display daily – Trump would do such a thing and is fact known for it, and no, there is no recourse for Hellvis’s general except to gamble even more money in court for a maybe judgement in maybe a year that still may not get paid …………. or take his lumps. That’s what most of Trump’s victims do. Read about some of them here.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/
“John, I am in a small city and we operate with subs on verbal contracts. You will get known if you are a rip off artist”
Correct, my point, and then you are done.
This oh, I will move to another domain is bullshit – reputations follow people.
Again to you think that DB did not check Trump out before lending him money.
You get parts of this right, but then wave magic pixie dust to allow the unsustainable to continue.
“You can just kiss off that money and never do business with Trump again”
Are you honestly saying that after losing money with trump over and over you would come back to get screwed again ?
If so – you went bankrupt long ago.
“Some people – probably not in your social group – can’t afford to write off $10k or less and also can’t afford an attorney and the time to go after it in court against an a..hole like Trump with an attorney on full time retainer for dealing with multiple schmucks.”
Last year one client ripped me off for 15K. I spent 6 months trying to collect. Now I am turning the debt over to a collection agency, I have contacted the clients client and informed them – I have a very good relationship with them. I have also contacted many of the other consultants in my business.
In the long run the people who ripped me off will likely see far more damage than they have done me.
At the same time – if I am the only consultant they have ever ripped off – it is unlikely many will care. People tend to beleive that unusual claims are false.
But if I am one of 10 people claiming they were ripped off – this client is in trouble.
You claim Trump ripps off people who can not afford to go after him. I doubt he has that much business with people that small.
My DD business exists – because the big banks and insurance companies will not deal with me directly.
I am hired by companies smaller than the banks but bigger than I am.
And I hire people smaller than me.
That is how things work.
I doubt Trump ever dealt with subcontractors directly.
Regardless, big construction projects do not ever have a single authority.
In most of the architectural projects I have done. If the architect approves a payment application – not only does the contractor get paid – but they have to prove all the subs were paid. If the owner refuses to pay – the lawsuit will be resolved swiftly based on what the architect approved. If a sub is not paid – the architect will hold up future payments to the contractor. Or pay the sub direct.
The process is similar with a CM firm.
Though how many 15K contracts do you think Trump has EVER signed – or agreed to verbally ?
The Banks that will not deal with me direct – as Smaller than Trump.
I will note the norms and conventions above for another reason – these are the ways the market has adapted over time to impede the very problems you allege regarding Trump.
Absolutely – there are courts and lawsuits. But most problems are resolved with out them – because they are expensive and inefficient.
Do people gripe ? Sure. I agreed to a fix fee contract about 2 years ago. I grossly under estimated the effort, and it has taken me 10 times the effort I expected. I have never erred this badly before. but I am griping and bitching and performing the contract. The client has paid what we agreed to. And the rest is my problem not theirs. They too underestimated the difficulty of this project, and are losing money.
It happens.
“You told Hellvis there was no problem”
No I said the problem was self correcting.
People claim they have been ripped off all the time.
But when one party regularly ripps people off – they do not remain in business.
“Well, the record is clear and his dishonesty on full display daily – Trump would do such a thing and is fact known for it, and no, there is no recourse for Hellvis’s general except to gamble even more money in court for a maybe judgement in maybe a year that still may not get paid …………. or take his lumps. That’s what most of Trump’s victims do. Read about some of them here.”
Nope, the record is very clear – Trump is still in business. You keep pretending that courts arr the only recorse.
They are important – but they are far from the primary factor.
If you are in business and you develop a reputation for dishonesty – you are DONE. No one will work for you.
If I hire you for 50K and only pay you 25K – are you going to work for me again ? If you do, then YOU are going out of business fast.
For “the record ” to be clear – nearly all people in business would have to be honest, and no one would ever be able to find out about who was not, and those who were ripped off would have to develop amnesia.
I have no problem with courts enforcing contracts. But you do not need courts, crooks will fail regardless. It is the nature of the market.
John, I get that you feel compelled to once again – and always – announce your religious beliefs regarding markets, but could you perhaps respond to the specific questions I raised? As to “mind reading”, your pronouncements are absurd enough to cause speculation as to WTF you are talking about. If you take offense ………. oh well.
Are the licenses you and I operate under primarily just government muscle to advantage us against other potential sellers or is there some other equal or more important function having to do with protecting the buyers and ultimately society, given the built environment may survive the original buyers and perhaps for centuries? If the former, are you working to eliminate these licensing laws and have you surrendered yours?
So, you think that all groups of citizens got what they deserved from 19th century capitalism and if they didn’t like it, too bad. Is that correct? Given government “force” to limit child labor, set work standards including work hours, enforce safety standards, etc. do you advocate for eliminating these results of that age? I hope so. I’ve mostly written you off as a crackpot and this would remove any remaining tendency to take you seriously/
“John, I get that you feel compelled to once again – and always”
More mind reading
“announce your religious beliefs regarding markets”
Not religion.
“As to “mind reading”, your pronouncements are absurd enough to cause speculation as to WTF you are talking about. If you take offense ………. oh well.”
No offense taken. Just observation. You claim to know what is going on in someone else’s head, what motivates them beyond what they have said. Mind reading is the politest word for that.
“Are the licenses you and I operate under primarily just government muscle to advantage us against other potential sellers or is there some other equal or more important function having to do with protecting the buyers and ultimately society, given the built environment may survive the original buyers and perhaps for centuries? If the former, are you working to eliminate these licensing laws and have you surrendered yours?”
Now you want me to engage in speculation. All government actions are force. As to the reasons behind licenses – there are many possibilities, or none. All that matters is the use is unjustified and with near certainty corrupt.
Why do buyers in markets with licensed providers need more protection than in other markets ?
Why does someone need a license to mow grass, give a pedicure ?
When I look for a physician I check the school they went to, and what their certifications are. I check reviews.
Why do I need to also verify a license ? And physicians are atleast in a life safety field.
Why does a barber need licensed ?
There are an infinite number of stupid laws and regulations that you left wing nuts have burdened us with.
I seek to get rid of them all.
But in the meantime so long as they existI am not going to put myself at a disadvantage because you and others like you have done stupid things.
“So, you think that all groups of citizens got what they deserved from 19th century capitalism and if they didn’t like it, too bad.”
You should hope no humans “get what they deserve. Regardless what has that got to do with anything.
Can I beat you up and take your wealth just because I want to ? How about me and 10 others ? How about 10,000 ? How about 300M others ? the use of force is not moral just because the majority blesses it. The germans stole everything from the jews with the blessing of the german people. That does not make it moral.
During the 19th century the standard of living rose twice as fast as today, it doubled even for the poor several times during a lifetime.
The greater the burden of govenrment on the economy the slower standard of living rises.
This has been studied by economists for decades.
“Given government “force” to limit child labor”
Government does not “limit” child labor or anything like it, rising standard of living does.
Children work in every poor society and do not in every wealthy one – whether there are laws or not.
Should you have children and be thrust into a subsistence life – your children are going to work – regardless of laws.
“set work standards including work hours”
Again these change with respect to the wealth of society – nothing else.
For much of human history 99% of people worked from dawn.to dusk when they stopped because they could not afford light.
“enforce safety standards”
Again driven by standard of living all over the world. Have you visited a US factory ? Safety standards are FAR above govenrment requirements – why ? Because labor is too valuable to risk loosing it even briefly for n accident.
“do you advocate for eliminating these results of that age”
The laws are unnecescary and counter productive. The problems they purport to solve were solved by prosperity.
You would have to be ignorant of logic and history to beleive otherwise.
If you imposed modern standards on people 500 years ago – or even 100 – you would kill them. They would be unable to produce enough to live.
“I hope so. I’ve mostly written you off as a crackpot and this would remove any remaining tendency to take you seriously”
That’s OK – you are a crackpot. You are ignorant of history, logic, economics, morality, philosophy.
You seem to think that government is magical, and it can create wealth from thin air.
I have no need to send my children to sweatshops, I can support my self on the hours I choose to work – because today I can produce enough value in that time to meet all my needs.
You do not seem to grasp that everything that we want is only attainable by what we produce.
There is only one route to a better world – produce more of what humans value with less human effort.
That is it. If the actions of government do not contribute to producing more with less – they make us worse off not better.
That’s not crackpot, its math.
“John, there are always failures on both sides of the issue.”
I do not accept there are two sides.
Markets are not perfect – but they are an infinite series of improvements converging on perfect.
All alternatives fail.
“One of the problems you do not consider”
There are an infinite number of problems I do not consider
but if they are significant or if they become significant the market does, quickly.
That is precisely what it does best – responding to our changing values.
“is that the individual has a life span”
The market always solve real problems faster than government.
“and though the marketplace probably always works better the life span interferes as the individual that is alive wants to see some of the results.”
Government will always take longer and always produce a poorer result.
“Without those results government instability is bound to occur.”
Governments cause market instability.
Markets do not cause government instability.
>>“John, there are always failures on both sides of the issue.”
>I do not accept there are two sides.
John that is quite noticeable from your remarks. You can live with zigzagged streets. I won’t and neither will most of society..
I don’t doubt that the marketplace does things better than government but at times there are additional factors than judging the monetary outcome of what was done.
“Government will always take longer”
That word “always” is a dangerous word and you should know that.
” I won’t and neither will most of society..”
You do not have to. But you can not force those who do not care to pay for your preferences.
You keep confusing what you and many others want or do not want with what you are free to get by force.
No one prevents you from having what you want – so long as no force is used and you pay for what you want.
Where you go off the rails is when what you want does not happen naturally in the time frame you want, you claim the right to accomplish it by force. By defintiion if “most of society” did not choose whatever you want in a free market, they are not entitled to have it by force.
You constantly claim that failure to get what you want is a problem. No, it is “most of society” saying they do not find the problem important enough to pay for.
“but at times there are additional factors than judging the monetary outcome of what was done.”
You do not appear to understand money. Money is the lubricant. It makes it much easier to transform what we produce into what we want and need. Markets are about goods and services. Value is measured by money.
“That word “always” is a dangerous word”
Yup, and I use it knowing that. It is possible that if you work very very hard you might find an exception.
And I will have to issue a mea culpa – my “always” claim is just 99.999% of the time. I think my point is still made.
Conversely if you are unable to find an execption (even if one exists) my point is still made.
“This black and white thinking leads you into to using words like “always”, “never” and now “cannot” that lead to a very deep and dark hole.”
Because you say so ?
No, they do not lead to dark holes.
My use of absolutes, as a noted is deliberate. They make a point that somethings really do have bright lines.
I will cede that there are exceptions or gray areas – but those are very rare – or you would be able to counter with them trivially.
And THAT is the correct way of dealing with a false absolute – to find the exception – to reduction ad absurdem it.
Absolutes that are not truly absolutes require limiting principles.
Some of my absolutes are not truly absolutes – but they are very very close. So close the limiting principles are small and the exceptions rare.
Regardless you have the logical tools to counter an absolute claim. The very fact that it is difficult is very meaningful.
And you have the darkness inverted. Being on the wrong side of an absolute or near absolute is where the dark places are.
“Maybe government should not force people to pay for things”
It is not just pay. All uses of force must be justified. There is not some exception. This is a foundational moral principle. Possibly THE foundational moral principle.
“they do not want but government can and will do so for any future time frame I can imagine. This entire train of thought is meaningless.”
You are eliding an incredibly important issue.
Government is force. PERIOD. If a problem does not require force, it is not a problem for government. If it does even then force can not be used willy nilly. It must be done carefully – not based on the whim of the majority or powerful interests, but based on firm and immutable constraints.
We both agree that government should be limited. I can provide you with numerous pragmatic, philosophical and logical reasons why.
I can provide the rules that establish the limits.
You can’t. In reality, limited govenrment without limits is a myth.
The entire train is not meaningless, it is both obvious and critical.
You are just trying to elide a serious moral problem.
You want what you want and you do not want any principles to get in the way of attaining it.
How is that different from a communist ?
>>”“This black and white thinking leads you into to using words like “always”, “never” and now “cannot” that lead to a very deep and dark hole.”
>Because you say so ? No, they do not lead to dark holes.”
I accept you believe that but it has lead us almost in circles until you recognized the need for compromise in another post which lead me to question what our discussion was all about.
“My use of absolutes, as a noted is deliberate.”
IMO that was a poor choice.
“I will cede that there are exceptions or gray areas – but those are very rare”
That I understand.
“We both agree that government should be limited.”
That is true.
“You are just trying to elide a serious moral problem.”
That is not true.
There is no requirement for compromise.
Compromise is a tool. It is not a principle.
It is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.
I have told you – there is no compromising principles.
We are debating principles.
Present me with a real world scenario that gets me closer to what I want than we have now – and I will compromise.
But I am not going to say “your right, that is the best answer”.
I will say “if that is the best I can get from you, I will take it – for now”.
“IMO that was a poor choice.”
Don;t care.
I am prepared to defend “always” and “never” until you successfully provide a counter example.
We know Newtonian physics is wrong.
It still works for 99.99% of human physics problems.
“We know Newtonian physics is wrong.
It still works for 99.99% of human physics problems.”
John, It so happens that the .01% becomes supremely important for certain things to work and that is becomming more and more evident as time moves on. Had scientists stuck with your idea of Never this progress would not have been made.
Now you will bounce back to tell us this is one of the exceptions. That is the problem with your analysis utilizing Never / Always. It fails and even worse by relying on Never one doesn’t search for other things and by not searching one is likely not to find them.
Absolutely – if you wish to travel to alpha centari – newtonian phyciscs will not get you there.
If you wish to build a bridge, a road, it will do perfectly.
“Markets are human interactions.”
So are toilets.
The discussion is about principles.
We are not in congress trying to pass laws.
We are debating the issues, There is no reason to compromise with you
any compromise with you would be a compromise of principles.
Because you have nothing to offer me
Your wrong on the issue, because neither you nor I can effectuate anything. the debate must always be about principles.
“The discussion is about principles.”
To you this blog might be about principles and perhaps principles should play a larger part. On this blog we do not have any impact. Whether one has impact or not off the blog is a different story.
Almost all our discussions involve mostly policy but we both feel strongly about principles as do a number of other people on the blog especially those on the right. If you wish to discuss principles then you have to be specific. We were discussing the effects of policy on the police. I believe that requires an open mind and an ability to change one’s position. The anarchist would say the solution is to end police departments. One can end effective policing merely by being to rigid to one set of principles over another and not considering the effects of policy on the policeman. I took a very open position and explored by prior example (physician malpractice) the uninteded consequences of not dealing with human nature.
If you wish to talk about principle I will set one of my principles clearly. Though I don’t always agree and feel it is sometimes harmful I believe in following the Constitution as it provides an anchor for the nation and thereby provides us some degree of safety and stability. If you wish to place your theory of the free market place above the Constitution that is your free choice.
“On this blog we do not have any impact. ”
Correct – therefore the discussion is about principles.
You do not negotiate to acheive the best possible outcome at the potential expense of principles.
In a forum where you have no effect on outcome.
John, what you think you are discussing is principles but what you are actually discussing are the facts behind what we are seeing happening around us. I recognize that when you talk you are talking about policy based on your princples. I haven’t seen much back and forth on principles alone so perhaps it would be better if your comment started that you are not interested in policy and only interested in promoting your principles.
We have already solved that question between the two of us. My underlying principles are adherence to the Constitution and generally prefer the free market over government action with the qualifier that I agree with Hayek’s logic. as mentioned multiple times. You seem to have placed libertarianism ahead of the Constitution.
“If you wish to discuss principles then you have to be specific. ”
I have been.
“We were discussing the effects of policy on the police.”
That is the policy – not the principle.
““We were discussing the effects of policy on the police.”
That is the policy – not the principle.”
John, the discussion was born based on how the police react to policy (note, one policy was to disband the police department). If it were based on principles there would be no discussion. Federalism under our Constitution permits the states to do a lot of things that are against your principles and mine as well, but it seems your libertarianism is an on / off switch. I prefer to deal with the inadequacies of the Constitution. I am not here to change your personal strict libertarian belief.
“One can end effective policing merely by being to rigid to one set of principles over another and not considering the effects of policy on the policeman.”
You are assuming that we have the ability to effectuate results again.
Regardless, QI is wrong as a matter of principle. eliminating it will not have direct significant impact on policing.
It will not demoralize the police. All the other matters – like chokeholds etc. While NOT be decided by rigid law, but ultimately by their effectiveness and their cost. That is what we want.
“You are assuming that we have the ability to effectuate results again.”
Yes, when NYC changed is method of policing crime fell. Policy does have an effect on specific results.
“Regardless, QI is wrong as a matter of principle. eliminating it will not have direct significant impact on policing.
It will not demoralize the police”
It appears you are speculating to use your term. As an aside I didn’t say I would or would not get rid of Qi. I said I was open to all arguments and discussion regarding that policy especially since I am not sure of all the laws and how much immunity the the police have or might not have from the state. You have drawn conclusions without proof.
You held malpractice insurance to immunize yourself against financial loss. I wonder why you paid for it? If financial safety was reduced would that have had a demoralizing affect on you?
None of the liberal posters here articulate any principles at all. Enigma and Jill have sentiments which do not align precisely with partisan politics. The rest of them just make animadversions against the opposition and contrive defenses of conduct they’d never want used against anyone with whom they were allied. This is how street-level Democrats ‘think’.
“None of the liberal posters here articulate any principles at all.”
The list master is a Liberal and he articulates principle.
The problem can be resolved by addressing the semantic error.
Progessives do not ague principles – actual liberals do – Turley Derschowitz, ..
The modern left is not “liberal” JT is.
Professor Turley demonstrates that he is both a liberal and a Liberal.
One of our leftoid posters regularly upbraids him as a partisan of the President (as well as dumping obscenities on the moderator). Just advocating procedural principles in front of a committee of Congress, Prof. Turley placed himself in a minority of one. He’s 58 years old. Find someone younger in and among the law professoriate who is occupying the space he does.
Allan, if you have 100 officers on your police force and your malpractice insurance premiums were $100,000.00 for each officer, then the taxpayers would have to pay $10,000,000.00 in premiums. Does that seem right?
Police malpractice costs are likely to be extremely low.
Torts claims are awarded by juries, who are also tax payers.
High awards that tax payers must pay are very rare
Independent, I agree as to where you are going. I think John believes in rigid adherence to marketplace theory in a country where much of it exists outside of the free market. His ideas, though important to listen to, cannot exist in our lifetimes or in the forseeable distant future.
These considerations are not just based on bean counting so the model John uses only deals with the world as described by John.
The problem we face is that John is so uncompromising his voice is lost when one attempts to steer the nation in a better direction. He is all too willing to make that very quick turn so that the train runs off the track. We don’t need anarchy though we are getting it today from the other side. The future can very quickly turn dim.
I beleive in what works.
Markets work.
We have almost 100 years of studies of all kinds of government interventions.
We have no results suggesting they produce better or even as good a results as markets.
I am RIGIDLY applying what is know.
You say what I claim can not exist – but it does, all over.
There may be no libertopia. But nearly every issue we debate has some often many places in the world where the market based approach is used rather than the regulatory approach.
We can look at each individual claim and we can see that in the real world markets work
I will be happy to compromise. But not on principles.
I will agree to some govenrment control of any market in a heartbeat – as long as it is less than we have now.
But I will not pretend while doing so that we are moving from bad to optimal. Just bad to less bad.
“Markets work.”
Markets are inanimate. To say they work is like saying the toilet works…only until it doesn’t.
You keep bringing up the regulatory approach as a strawman. I believe in a market approachbut recognize that sometimes one has to bend a bit. I won’t repeat what Hayek said.
“I will be happy to compromise. But not on principles.”
If you believe total adherence to the marketplace is a principle then you do not believe in compromise.
“I will agree to some govenrment control of any market in a heartbeat – as long as it is less than we have now.”
Great, then there was no need for our recent discussion. What I have continuously said is we need to move the needle in the right direction.
“Markets are inanimate.”
False markets are humans.
“To say they work is like saying the toilet works…only until it doesn’t.”
Markets are not inanimate. the comparison to a toilet is wrong.
>>”“Markets are inanimate.” >>“To say they work is like saying the toilet works…only until it doesn’t.”
>Markets are not inanimate. the comparison to a toilet is wrong.”
The comparison is correct. There is a human component for the market place and for the toilet. The big difference is that toilets only involve a couple of variables and markets involve an infinite number of variables.
Allan markets are humans interacting with other humans.
They are not inanimate.
That is why economics is not a hard science.
Economics is the study of one domain of human behavior.
“Allan markets are humans interacting with other humans. They are not inanimate.”
Markets are not humans and neither are toilets. Both involve humans.
Markets are human interactions
They are as human as out speech or any other aspect of our behavior
Markets are as human as $h!tting. Toilets are objects, not behaviors.
John, we are having a definitional problem since the two operative words you use have multiple definitions. You will have to be cleare and a little less emotionally attached. We are not on the same page.
I would also suggest Nasim Taleeb’s writings on anti-fragility.
Markets are anti-fragile.
“I would also suggest Nasim Taleeb’s writings on anti-fragility.
Markets are anti-fragile.”
That is one variable among many. Toilets are simple. Markets are complex. A better retort by you would have been markets are not tangible, toilets are, but my response was created to straighten out the misperception that though we consider markets alive they really aren’t in the human sense.
Markets are human interactions.
They are anti-fragile because in this context humans are anti-fragile.
“Markets are human interactions.”
So are toilets.
$h!tting is a human action.
A toilet is not.
One does not require a living human for two things to interact.
“One does not require a living human for two things to interact.”
So? Marketds are human action. Not planetary motions.
John, your point is?
“If you believe total adherence to the marketplace is a principle then you do not believe in compromise.”
You keep telling me what I beleive and your not good at it.
I believe that markets will always produce the best outcome (for problems that do not require force),
But I will agree to move from greater government interferance in markets rather than no interferance so long as you do not insist that is more than an improvement.
“You keep telling me what I beleive and your not good at it.”
John, it is quite clear that I am NOT stating what you believe. I said “If you believe….” which leaves the door open for you to choose either side but for some reason you prefer to tell me I am essentially mind reading rather than responding as to which side you belong on. Then you repeat your mantra for the umpteenth time thinking that should suffice for an answer. It doesn’t and that only leads to me being left with a non answer so that I have to repeat “If you believe”. You are the cause of the problem because you do not answer directly.
This response of your was somewhat a better answer to the question ““If you believe total adherence to the marketplace is a principle then you do not believe in compromise.” . It would be even more clear if you simply answered No, you do not believe in total adherence to the marketplace and you believe in compromise.” Then you could add the qualifiers you wish but you seem to be used to taking a very black and white stand.
Again I will say, if my interpretation is correct we have no dispute over the fundamental issue under discussion and most of these emails were unnecessary. How far one is willing to distort the marketplace will always be an open question and based on the individual. I will stand with Hayek and say that there are times when we must or should but those times should be handled with the least effect on the marketplace.
I do not expect that individual policemen will pay for their own malpractice. I expect that the part of government that they work for will.
As an architect at one time I had 55 people working for me. About 1/3 of those were architects, about 1/3 of those were licensed
I paid malpractice for all of them – so long as they worked for me.
The same will occur if police, prosecutors, judges can be individually sued.
What will be different is that policing, prosecution and judging will have independent outside oversight that is much much harder to be gamed (not impossible)
This is just Madison’s Federalist 51 – government can not be trusted to oversee itself and the people are not sufficient, put into action.
If insurance companies face the prospect of large awards against the police they cover – they will force municiplaities to correct policing problems or pay astronomical insurance.
That is “regulation” – but not by government. And it is for the most part – voluntary a priori regulation to avoid involuntary a posteriori regulation through torts.
Regardless, no matter how worried you are about the torts system – and it is not perfect. it is far better than govenrment alternatives.
Torts and malpractice has another advantage.
We are involved in a political food fight over how to reform policing.
Get rid of QI and that entirely goes away. No laws will be needed to reform policing.
Further the process of reform will become dynamic and eternal.
The police will be constantly under pressure from insurance companies to improve to reduce malpractice claims.
You will not have reform passed once and have to wait decades for further reform.
You will have market driven improvements in policing to reduce liability.
“I do not expect that individual policemen will pay for their own malpractice. I expect that the part of government that they work for will.”
That is fine. However, you do recognize that corporations limit their liability under the law which gets you back to ‘partial immunity’ which is under question. Are you advocating that government “corporations” be treated differently than private “corporations”? Secondly there comes a point where costs become so great (without any benefit for the cost) that things start to fail. I will discuss that if you wish but I think it is easy to understand when costs increase to a point where there is no benefit. That might get you to a point you like, no police, but I don’t find that acceptable at this time and place.
“f insurance companies face the prospect of large awards against the police they cover – they will force municiplaities to correct policing problems or pay astronomical insurance.”
I don’t have disagreement with that opinion but I keep the idea of limited immunity open in todays world because I don’t think we can afford to permit suits to bankrupt the taxpayer. The ability to tax (and for the feds to print money) and borrow reduces liquidity constraint which can cause costs to go out of control because of the appearance of an unending supply of money.
You keep making this argument black and white. I am more libertarian than not, but I am more pragmatic than I am libertarian and I utilize Hayek’s “advice” that if I have to interfere I interfere in the manner that least affects the marketplace.
“Get rid of QI”
At this moment I am not sure what QI is.
“However, you do recognize that corporations limit their liability under the law”
With specific respect to malpractice that is false.
There is no corporate shield for individual malpractice.
Just as there is not corporate shield for criminal conduct.
“secondly there comes a point where costs become so great (without any benefit for the cost)”
In a free market that can not happen for long.
Costs that exceed benefits do not persist”.
I recall during the debates over Clinton’s heatlh care reform some Bush administration official responding to a point much like yours that was being used by Clinton to justify health care reform. His answer was
Things that can not continue, Don’t.
” I will discuss that if you wish”
No need – you do not understand the Bushy above made.
Things that can not continue, Don’t.
>>”“However, you do recognize that corporations limit their liability under the law”
>With specific respect to malpractice that is false.
There is no corporate shield for individual malpractice.”
Professionals can’t escape malpractice but because in the end everything is about money even individuals that incorporate might carry corporate insurance as well as personal liabiltiy. In many places policy limits becomes an important consideration. Things aren’t as cut and dry as you think.
Corporations can cut their liabilty concerns by outsourcing certain things from the corporation and of course corporations can go bankrupt and reopen under a new name.
Allan
I negotiated professional liability insurance for 35 years.
I am really familiar with it.
The inability of a professional to escape personal liability is a matter of law.
You want that different – change the law.
Further policy limits are somewhat mushy especially in malpractice cases.
Courts often make awards in excess of policy limits and require the insurance to pay regardless.
“Corporations can cut their liabilty concerns by outsourcing certain things from the corporation”
So can individuals.
Architects hire engineers,
Surgeons have separate anesthesiologists.
“of course corporations can go bankrupt and reopen under a new name.”
Bankruptcy is supervised by courts.
If generally serves one of two purposes.
Saving a business that can be saved where that is in the best interests of all the creditors.
Disolving a business that can not be saved in the way that is fairest to all the creditors.
Hiding from creditors and reopening under a new name is NOT among the purposes of bunkruptcy.
It might be possible to lie to courts and acheive that. But it is not common.
Allan you are constantly speculating.
It is one thing to speculate and say – the market will solve problems even those I do not know what are – because there is a history of it doing so.
It is entirely different to say that “if this happens, then this will follow” in a complex system with multiple variables.
I rarely tell you exactly how the market will solve a problem.
I sometimes tell you how it might.
But I can only speculate as to how I would.
Markets are the creativity of the entire world.
I think I am very smart and creative, but I can not match that.
But you constantly think that you can, or that government can.
You tell me that as I negotiated insurance – you are certain of all kinds of other factors.
WHY ? You are speculating about the past so there is a known answer.
But you do not know it, and yet you insist on guessing.
And your guesses assume the state of multiple variables, that you also do not know.
“Allan you are constantly speculating.”
John if you think so then you should certainly be able to tell me what I am speculating about and enclose quotes of mine that show that to be true and if it is constant you should be able to show me multiple episodes of speculation. I did ask you in a polite way whether you built a company or you negotiated rates and a reduction of risks. I was merely following through with your claims so I better understood what you were talking about.
You state: “It is entirely different to say that “if this happens, then this will follow” in a complex system with multiple variables.” but quite unfortunately I never said that. I did say that I needed information to know which way to turn and my mind was not fixed. It is open to compromise.
“But you constantly think that you can, or that government can.”
Again, I don’t think that at all. I just believe that rigid adherence to a singular philosophy at all times is dangerous and that the words Never and Always can be very dangerous when utilized in discussion.
“You are speculating about the past so there is a known answer.”
I wasn’t speculating. I was providing to the best of my knowledge what occurred in certain areas at a certain time trying to demonstrate that sometimes doing nothing can have bad consequences. I am looking for the answers that create a better police department. That doesn’t mean that I believe police departments are bad rather it means I am constantly looking for improvement.
>“Allan you are constantly speculating.”
“John if you think so then you should certainly be able to tell me what I am speculating about and enclose quotes of mine that show that to be true and if it is constant you should be able to show me multiple episodes of speculation. I did ask you in a polite way whether you built a company or you negotiated rates and a reduction of risks. I was merely following through with your claims so I better understood what you were talking about.”
This is not even a close call. Everytime you look at a problem and ignore the fact that there are many possible solutions,
You are speculating.
Whenever you posit that government should solve any problem, you MUST speculate – you must posit a specific answer to that problem.
But all problems have many answers of varying efficacy. When you act through government – you impose one answer by force.
But you do not know that answer is right.
Markets are constantly testing multiple answers and rejecting poor ones and proceeding with the current based ones.
Government can not do that
” Everytime you look at a problem and ignore the fact that there are many possible solutions,
You are speculating. Whenever you posit that government should solve any problem, you MUST speculate”
My previous answer regarding speculation interpreted your statement to mean I was reading your mind. I thought you took offense to my question as to whether your active work experience in the insurance industry involved you negotiating and adjusting risk or whether you were involved in the creation of a new company.
Based on my present understanding, I agree, we all speculate whenever we are attempting to figure out how to handle the problems that face us. The word speculate means to form theories and to hypothesize. Isn’t that basically what is done on blogs of this nature? You speculate as well because you make choices that involve speculation. You might even speculate that markets are perfect and there is no such thing as a market failure. Maybe not. IMO absolute rigidity regarding the marketplace means no rules (rules are based on speculation). That means anarchy and not abiding to Constitutional law.
>You state: “It is entirely different to say that “if this happens, then this will follow” in a complex system with multiple variables.” but quite >unfortunately I never said that.
Does not matter – it is a requirement for government action and it is rarely going to be right.
“I did say that I needed information to know which way to turn and my mind was not fixed.”
Information is what markets are about.
Presumably you have heard of the information problem or the socialist calculation problem.
It is why socialism fails. But it is not unique to socialism. It is why government solutions will always under perform market ones.
Because you can never have the information needed to make a high quality decision.
>“But you constantly think that you can, or that government can.”
>Again, I don’t think that at all. I just believe that rigid adherence to a singular philosophy at all times is dangerous and that the words Never >and Always can be very dangerous when utilized in discussion.
Markets are not rigid. Government is,
I rigidly insist that absent a problem necessitating the use of force, you do not solve that problem in the rigid domain of government but in the flexible one of markets.
But simply you have what is rigid and what is flexible inverted.
>>”unfortunately I never said that.
>Does not matter “
Of course it matters that you put into quotes a statement that looked like I said it when I didn’t.
>>“I did say that I needed information to know which way to turn and my mind was not fixed.”
>Information is what markets are about.
Information is what a lot of things are about. One needs information to learn how to use a toilet.
“Markets are not rigid. Government is,”
In drawing that conclusions it appears you said: “But you constantly think that you can, or that government can.”
That is wrong. I believe in the marketplace as we have discussed countless of times. I believe governments can screw up the marketplace. I also believe in the Constitution and federalism.
I believe that when government interferes with the marketplace we should follow Hayek’s advice.
I don’t know one way or the other but it sounds as if you do not believe in the Constitution.
>”But simply you have what is rigid and what is flexible inverted.”
I adhere to the law and the Constitution is the basis for our laws and our federalist system. I live in the place where the Constitution prevails. You seem to have a rigid belief in your ideology to such an extent I wonder if you have placed the marketplace above the Constitution. In the past to others your argument was change the laws. Maybe that would be good advice for you.
“Of course it matters that you put into quotes a statement that looked like I said it when I didn’t.”
You quoted me my statement was:
a rebuttal to an argument.
I believe you made that argument in some form.
But the argument is false whether you clearly made it or not.
If you believe another made a certain argument say it, but don’t say it with quotes that make it appear the person actually said those exact words. You know better than that. You shouldn’t be making excuses for doing that.
You say the argument in quotes, that you recognize weren’t my words , is false. You are doubling down on the error and pretending again that that quote reflects exactly what I say. That is untrue. Stop creating red herrings for the sole purpose of proving yourself right when more likely you are wrong. I said that I didn’t say those words and you admit to that fact. Don’t pretend to read my mind so you can say that your false quote is what I think. That is wrong and you know better.
“I believe that when government interferes with the marketplace we should follow Hayek’s advice.”
I agree and Hayek clearly said that though we can choose to at on somethings through government for emotional reasons, that doing so will produce an inferior results.
Regarding Hayek’s statement under discussion, you are wrong.
“that doing so will produce an inferior results.”
Inferior or superior is subjective and is based on the results one wishes to achieve. Hayek did not indicate at all that he believed such subjective thinking should lead one to such a conclusion regarding the topic under discussion. He left that type of conclusion open.
“I adhere to the law and the Constitution is the basis for our laws and our federalist system. I live in the place where the Constitution prevails. You seem to have a rigid belief in your ideology to such an extent I wonder if you have placed the marketplace above the Constitution. In the past to others your argument was change the laws. Maybe that would be good advice for you.”
The constitution as written is the final law of the land.
It is overall pretty good – especially if followed as written.
As written it would being as damn near libertopia.
But it is nowhere near read as written – and it really never has been.
I do not “beleive” in the constitution. But I follow it.
Regardless, we are often arguing principles here.
The constitution contains few principles.
I am not going to constrain what is sometimes a philosophical argument to the constitution – as written or any other way.
It is not the bibble.
“Regardless, we are often arguing principles here.”
It’s not regardless. The principle involved is whether or not we agree with the Constitution as written even though we may not agree with Supreme Court decisions. We have two alternatives, the Constitution or revolution. I may not agree with our interpretation of the Constitution but I agree less with revolution.
“I think you may not understand the discussion. The idea of policy limits for the professional is that if his insurer refuses to pay policy limits then any judgement above the coverage is not paid by the professional but paid by the insurer.”
I understand it perfectly and as a matter of practice today you are often wrong.
If I am an architect and I have 500K in assets, and a professional policy with a 1M limit, and I am found to be liable to the tune of $4M.
It is highly likely the court will require the insurance company to pay almost all of $4M.
If I am a 20M company and I have a $1M policy and I am found responsible – probably the court will require that company to come up with the 3M.
We can argue about whether that is how things should be, but in the real world that is typical.
John, where did I say anything that contradicts what you are telling me now? If you can please provide quotes. The only problem I can see is that I felt your prior response “MAY” not have understood the discussion I was putting forward. That doesn’t assign blame. I therefore tried to clarify the issues. Was there something wrong in my clarification? If you understand the reason behind policy limits (based on state law) then we are in the same ball park.
I didn’t need to know your financials but the reason I brought up policy limits was that if used under appropriate situations your 20M company would not be liable for any money and the insurer would have to cover it all no matter how high the settlement.
“the court will require the insurance company to pay almost all of $4M.”
What I didn’t understand in your comments was the above statement since your policy was only up to $1M.
“I can think of many instances involving many regular people where this type of action was seen. If you want to know one involving the healthcare sector, stores providing DME covered by Medicare. If you want one in the building trade, companies that build pools.”
I want specifics, because I highly doubt you are correct.
There are fundimentally two froms of bankruptcy – reorganization, and liquidation.
In the first creditors are made whole, but often their interest is reduced and payment is delayed.
And ultimately the business survives. If there are losses – aside from interest they are taken by shareholders.
In the second the business is liquidated, all assets are sold, and creditors are paid proportionately to the total available based on some formal rules and priorities in the law.
In the 2nd the business ceases to exist, If someone starts a new business – it is new. If they bought the assets of the old – they actually bough them, using money they found elsewhere.
This does nto fit your claim.
Nor does the first.
In rare occasions frauds on the courts occur – but they are not common.
outside of small things bankruptcy fraud tends to be obvious.
And it is criminal.
The closest thing I can think of to your secanrio is GM.
Which was a badly done reorganization where the government changed the bankruptcy rules.
But even that does not match your claim.
“I want specifics, because I highly doubt you are correct.”
How can I provide you with specifics except to search the newspapers and government files demonstrating the change of name of various companies. However I think the 60 Minute show on Medicare Fraud years ago demonstrated how DME companies would be paid and later found fraudulent. They would reopen under a new name and play the same game over again.
“This does nto fit your claim.”
I am not sure what claim you are talking about. If you can please provide a description of what you are talking about and the quote perhaps I can locate it and explain further.
“I don’t have disagreement with that opinion but I keep the idea of limited immunity open in todays world because I don’t think we can afford to permit suits to bankrupt the taxpayer.”
It is the threat of rising costs that will cause insurance companies and/or tax payers to demand other reforms.
“The ability to tax (and for the feds to print money) and borrow reduces liquidity constraint which can cause costs to go out of control because of the appearance of an unending supply of money.”
All interesting but no bearing on municipalities.
“You keep making this argument black and white.”
Not exactly. Saying that some issue is outside the domain of govenrment or that qualified immunity for govenrment employees should not exist – is black and white. But that answers one thing, Not everything.
I would further note that Qualified immunity is just insurance for police created by law with the cost imposed on the victims of police misconduct.
No matter what – the cost exists, Someone will pay it.
” I am more libertarian than not,”
This is not so much libertarian as empriacle. Government solutions to problems that can be solved in the free market always underperform markets. That is a fact. It might be an ideologically conventient fact, but it is still a fact.
“but I am more pragmatic”
Pragmatically, markets out perform regulation.
“I utilize Hayek’s “advice” that if I have to interfere I interfere in the manner that least affects the marketplace.”
What we are debating is when you have to interfere.
Presumably you are atleast conservative and wish for limited government.
WHY ?
Whether we are libertarain, conservative, socialist, marxist. We adhere to an ideology because we beleive it will produce the best results.
Well markets univerasally produce the best results for all problems that can be solved without force.
There is pretty good data to support that.
But lets consider that might not be true.
So when is it that government is going to perform better than the market ?
Bernie sanders does not say – Socialism will produce worse results but we should do it anyway.
He constantly produces examples that he THINKS prove the superiority of socialism – if we did not have 57 kinds of deoderant, deoderant would be cheaper and we could spend the save money on educating children.
Sounds great. But the problem with socialism is that it does not work. it results in less choices that are more expensive and less money to educate children.
Free markets work. Nothing works better. Your examples – even when they are examples of how we have structured things are just like Bernies – they work in your head – in reality they underwhelm.
>>“I utilize Hayek’s “advice” that if I have to rarely interfere I interfere in the manner that least affects the marketplace.”
>”What we are debating is when you have to interfere.”
That is the debate. I say, like Hayek, that government should interfere rarely with the least effect on the marketplace and your response is black and white… no interference.
In the example of the medical malpractice issue your method would be to let the market sort it out. If no physicians in certain specialties became available your answer would be to let people die for however long it took for the market place to correct the situation.
I understand your position. I just don’t believe it is a viable solution in today’s society.
My response is black and white.
It is not never.
The rules for everything involving government should always be as black and white as possible.
The FIRST requirement for government intervention must be that we are dealing with a problem where force is required.
If that is not the case – leave it to the market.
“My response is black and white.
It is not never.”
If you wish I will go back and quote where you used the words never, always, cannot and similar words.
“The rules for everything involving government should always be as black and white as possible.”
Now seeing the iron getting ready to snap you are now adding a bit of “as possible” and making steel so it bends.
“The FIRST requirement for government intervention must be that we are dealing with a problem where force is required.”
It seems that you are learning to bend.
>“My response is black and white. It is not never.”
“If you wish I will go back and quote where you used the words never, always, cannot and similar words.”
But not in the specific instance we are dealing with.
>“The rules for everything involving government should always be as black and white as possible.”
“Now seeing the iron getting ready to snap you are now adding a bit of “as possible” and making steel so it bends.”
Fine, eliminate “as possible”, and we will deal with the rare instances where black and white are not possible when they arise.
>“The FIRST requirement for government intervention must be that we are dealing with a problem where force is required.”
“It seems that you are learning to bend.”
Nope that has been my position forever. In fact it is not a position it is a moral principle.
You may not use force against others, where force is not required.
That applies to individuals and government.
It is not new.
But do note, it is the FIRST requirement, it is not the only one.
“But not in the specific instance we are dealing with.” [Never and Always]
Maybe, maybe not. I was commenting on their use being dangerous.
>>“It seems that you are learning to bend.”
>Nope that has been my position forever. In fact it is not a position it is a moral principle.”
John, that makes our discussion moot but I am sure it will be revisited again.
“If no physicians in certain specialties became available your answer would be to let people die for however long it took for the market place to correct the situation.”
You constantly presume that if you do not act – you know what would happen.
1). You do not.
2). The market will ALWAYS solve the problem faster.
3). You also presume that some problem always requires a solution. the vast majority of problems don’t.
“You constantly presume that if you do not act – you know what would happen.
1). You do not.
2). The market will ALWAYS solve the problem faster.”
I know in certain areas of the country people were dying while the problem continued to get worse. Many more people would have died but certain hospitals hadsome sort of soverign immunity so the cases were flown there but where time is of the essence people die. Sovereign immunity provides a type of protection from being sued.
Back to the police which is the issue all sorts of limitation can be placed on suits. Many of them do not have to significantly interfere with the marketplace.
The only limitations that need placed on torts suits already exist – that real harm must be proven, and that awards must be reasonable.
Juries are likely to heavily favor the police. Even when municipalities can be sued, the awards are rarely large.
People do not vote to raise their own taxes.
Regardless there is no need for laws.
“The only limitations that need placed on torts suits already exist”
John, if you wish to believe the world is static that is your choice. I’ll keep my mind open to any changes that might make things better, This Never / Always attitude severely damages all your arguments. There are adjustments that can be made. Definitions of who caused the harm and how that should be determined are wide open. “awards must be reasonable.” is a subjective statement so it doesn’t lead towards consistency or fairness. I think what you are saying is not that no further limitations are needed but that the basis of torts is proven harm and attempting to make the person whole. I think your narrow view is way too simplified though your two points are the essential basis for torts.
“Juries are likely to heavily favor the police. ”
Things change so that is not a good way of thinking when creating laws. Laws should not be created on the basis of todays polling.
Well architect John Shall we call you Howard Roark? Lol. Watched fountainhead one too many times i think
I hate the fountainhead. I think it is one of the worst books Rand wrote, and the movie is not much better.
John Say – which movie, new or old?
There is a new version ?
I would not know. I really hated the book. I got about half way through and gave up. It is supposed to be better than Atlas shrugged, it is supposed to be her opus. It is the worst thing of Rand’s I have ever read. I like Atlas shrugged much better.
The only movie version of Fountainhead I have watched was the old one “gregory peck ?”
It was better than the book.
She also wrote a dytopia – Anthem, that is like 1984 or brave new world. It is short and it is an excellent dystopia.
John Say – the 1949 version of “The Fountainhead” starred Henry Fonda. The is supposed to be a Zach Synder version available, but I see nothing listed on IMDb.
the 1949 version of “The Fountainhead” starred Gary Cooper
Gary Cooper
John Say, I am sure you are a good person and almost every liberterian I have met has a good heart.
But the naivete. Living in fantasy land. In the real world, you better have a strong state which serves the interest of a sufficient number of society well, or you will get replaced by a stronger clique eventually, and they will not respect whatever fanciful notions you once had.
Political reality respects ideas but works on an engine run by pragmatism. Politics is the art of the possible, and liberterian notions are generally impossible.
Republicans need to shuck off this kind of ethereal daydreaming before they are sidelined to the same kind of irrelevance the Liberterian party has.
Laissez Faire, free market etc., Austrian school, Friedman, etc., these are all useful theoretical constructs for economics and understanding what laws may be optimal and their possible inefficiencies and unintended consequences, but, leave a political ideology of anarchy to the anarchists.
I realize of course that Ayn Rand said that free market ideology actually had a normative content in that it protects the individual who is the be all and end all of her thinking, but she was one lady who fashioned her novels and nonfiction to serve essentially only herself. That is it. She made a goddess of her own interests. And fools out of all her followers. See, a “minority of one” as she called a person, is very weak. And weak is not good. That’s about all you need to know to deflate the vaunted false idol of individualism. It makes you weak not to have a team. The strength of the wolf is in the pack.
she was antisocial and should have been ignored by serious politicians and thinkers. Instead she lead so many including myself when i was a callow youth, into years of intellectual error that stifled our attainments in the real world.
A standout false prophet in a gaggle of them, and yet the limperterians are out there preaching it still.
libeterian thinking particularly objectivist variety and what a perversion they are compared to reality, is manifest in Ayn Rand’s buddy and disciple Alan Greenspan taking ahold of the helm of the Federal reserve for years, when he had the chance to do so. And here we are today with this crazy MMT being implemented by his heirs not so long after he’s gone.
Kurtz, in the real world – the 19th century. We have government in the US peaking at about 8% of GDP during the Civil was and between 3-5% for the rest of the century. Standard of living rose twice as fast as during the 20th century and 4 times as fast as the present.
Further we know from data throughout the world that for every addtional 10% of GDP that govenrment consumes, the rate of increase in standard of living declines 1%. The 20th century data only allows us to go down to government of 19% of GDP.
But the data is robust to that level.
That is accross the entire world and over 100 years.
Libertarainism is not some mere beleif. It works in practice.
You repeatedly pretend otherwise. But real world data shows otherwise.
I do not need your personal twists on the history of various libertarians.
Rand had much of value to contribute, but she did not identify as libertarian.
Yes Greenspan was an alcolyte of Rand. And for a long time he was an excellent Fed chair.
But he started to beleive he could do no wrong. And then he blew up the economy.
John B. Taylor – maybe you have heard of the “taylor rule” has done some excellent work documenting Greenspan mid 90’s deviation from sound monetary policy.
Please to not try to connect MMT to libertarains. That is hair brained.
Regardless your “power ideology” does not conform to reality.
You can not have the government power you require for free, and paying for it will reduce your standard of living.
There is a lower bound on the size of govenrment before standard of living is negatively impacted.
But we know that it is south of 19% of GDP – that is less than half the size of US government.
I’ve had a very experienced lawyer tell me that once you’re in a court room, anything can happen. In the current environment we are in, cops will have to prove their innocence, not be proven guilty.
“I’ve had a very experienced lawyer tell me that once you’re in a court room, anything can happen. In the current environment we are in, cops will have to prove their innocence, not be proven guilty.”
One of the problems we are seeing right now (and with teachers), is that it is increasingly easier to convict them of crimes, than to fire them or otherwise hold them accountable.
Police will be better off without qualified immunity.
I am sure Ofc. Chauvin would rather face a wrongful death lawsuit than prison.
Further if municipalities must pay for malpractice insurance, they will have incentives to get rid of bad officers.
As will the police unions.
“In the current environment”
The current environment is crazy. That is not going to last long.
Policing has been improving for decades – especially for minorities.
We are actually doing a very good job.
But problems remain and further improvement is necescary.
The rants of defund or abolish the police are insane and will not happen.
And if we continue to demonize all police – crime is going to spike and stay high for a long time.
But if we do not do something about the hostile relationship of many police departments and the communities they serve we will have more of the problems at the moment.
Allan– how solid is this information? It is beyond explosive if true. I don’t understand why it has not come out until now. Thanks for sharing it.
honestlawyer – the info on Berman just dropped in the last couple of days.
Paul C– whenever President Trump does something, it is predictable that he will be attacked and accused of all manner of evil. Then, once the dust settles and the so-called journalists have moved on to their next tirade, almost without fail we learn of a valid reason for what the President did. If this report is true, Berman’s firing not only was justified, it was long overdue. Do you know who published the story?
honestlawyer – you might try Brietbart or RedState. They really stay on this stuff.
Honest, Very solid.
The mainstream media never publishes this type of news. It is written by John Solomon who will be slimed by those on the left, but virtually everything Solomon has said about the Russia hoax long in advance turned out to be true. When he writes his column one generally can hypertext to the data he is writing about.
This story is at https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/fired-prosecutor-was-given-biden-ukraine-allegations
You can subscribe to justthenews.com . There are other good articles but the best IMO are from John Solomon. Let me know what you think. There are so many sites on the Internet slimed by the left but who care about their reputations. There may be a dozen reliable investigative reporters that exist in the US, maybe less. John Solomon is one of the best.
Allan– Thanks! I always listen to John Solomon because I’ve never known him to be wrong. I think he and Sara Carter are two of the few remaining journalists in DC. I wonder how long it will take for the MSM to attack Solomon again. This story could convince a lot of people how corrupt Biden really is, assuming they ever hear it.
Honest, John Solomon just recently (months ago) started just the news. I am not sure but I think at least in part he was being interferred with.
As I understand
He co founded “the Hill”
but they sort of sacked him.
They did not like him reporting the truth.
John, that is what I believe happened but I never gathered enough proof to say it. If you have it, I’d like to see it.
Allan– Thanks for the post and for the link to justthenews.com. I subscribed.
We were living in DC the night of the Watergate break in. I remember the Potomac was about to flood. Looking back, Richard Nixon really was small potatoes compared to this and yet I know that if I tried to tell my democrat friends about what Biden and Berman did, they would cover their ears and launch into a ululation. They hate President Trump that much.
they would cover their ears and launch into a ululation”
That is why there is so much ignorance coming from the left.
honestlawyer – just the news is where I got it. Thanks, Allan for finding it. I get jtn so early in the morning I am really not fully awake when I read the articles. I get RedState at the same time. 😉
The moment Joe Biden told Ukriane “Fire Shokin, or do not get $1B”
Ukraine was corrupted an compromised irrepairably.
It does not matter if there was no wrong doing. It does not matter if Shokin was corrupt (though there is zero proof of that).
What matters is that Ukraine ceeded control of its government to the US from that moment forward.
There is excellent evidence that Ukrain beleived they were rolled to protect little Biden.
Regardless we subsequently have Ukraine meddling in the 2016 election – at the direction of the DNC,
You have them meddling in the Trump/Russia investigation.
You have them taking direction to hide the ball from “career” state officials looking to hide the prior misconduct.
We had the house democrats impeach Trump over his exchange with Ukraine.
But I would note – Trump did not ask Ukraine to investigate.
Trump asked Ukraine to cooperate with Barr and provide Barr with whatever evidence they had.
As the transcript reads. Trump did not direct Ukraine to prosecute or not prosecute anyone.
While he arguably could the difference is still important.
Ukraine can provide evidence – so long as it does not forge it as appears to be the case with the manafort journals,
without corrupting itself further or making it further a vasal of the US.
The decision to prosecute or not because a US decision. The political problem is a US problem.
Biden and democrats set themselves up as puppet masters of Ukraine.
Ukriane contacting Berman through intermediaries is a rational move on the part of Ukraine.
It is a step to extricate Ukraine from the US political process.
Circling back Biden forced Ukraine into the state of being a vasal.
That is true even if Shokin was corrupt or little biden was innocent.
There is no Joe Biden was correct about Shokin, or little Biden was innocent excuse for what VP Biden did.
It was not only wrong, but once it occured – the Ukraine government was PERMENENTLY in a bind.
They were inextricably made an unwilling player in US politics.
John, all of this is quite complex but can be summarized simply. None of Biden’s actions or the actions of the weaponized bureaucracy of the Obama administration were good for our nation or our people. It also makes our foreign policy more difficult and that too isn’t helpful to America or the American people. With regard to this event and its sequela Biden and Obama did a diservice to America.
I was addressing a specific action.
The moment Biden Threatened to withold the $1B if shokin was not fired, Biden significantly furthered the corruption in Ukriane.
From that instant Ukraine could not unentangle itself from US politics and elections. Everything Ukraine did after that had to weigh the political repercussions regarding the US.
Many things happened in Ukraine after that. Many decisions could have been made differently by Ukraine.
But US politics became a factor in ukraine government from that moment forward.
The Ukraine Prosecutor General came to Berman in 2018 because Ukraine could not afford to touch the Biden investigation.
If they prosecuted – they would be claimed to interfere with US elections, If they did not – they would be accused of favoring Biden.
Berman failed. And his failure is inextricably linked to the mess Biden created by threatening Ukraine.
John, I understand what you are saying but I believe our actions, including Bidens, were corrosive before that specific threat.
“Berman failed. And his failure is inextricably linked to the mess Biden created by threatening Ukraine.”
The blind leftists on our blog don’t see that failure as a problem.
The $1 billion was US Aid and conditional on the Ukraine cleaning up it’s well known corrupt government so the money was not poured down a rat hole. The Ukrainian Parliament voted to remove Shokin and his removal was also the policy of the World Bank and the EU. none of whom were in cahoots with Hunter Biden making $87k a month as window dressing. Nor would Biden have likely bragged publicly about a corrupt family bribe before the savvy Council on Foreign Relations conference .
John has previously stated plainly his suspicion of any news he doesn’t want to believe as well as his disregard for NOAA scientist for no clear reason other than their implied contradiction of his Dear Leader’s weather pronouncements. He has no credibility.
“The $1 billion was US Aid and conditional on the Ukraine cleaning up it’s well known corrupt government so the money was not poured down a rat hole. The Ukrainian Parliament voted to remove Shokin and his removal was also the policy of the World Bank and the EU. none of whom were in cahoots with Hunter Biden making $87k a month as window dressing. Nor would Biden have likely bragged publicly about a corrupt family bribe before the savvy Council on Foreign Relations conference .”
You either know better than this or you are deeply ignorant.
The actions of WB etc were all driven by Biden’s team at the FBI.
There exists to this day no evidence that Shokin was corrupt. Even today he lives modestly on a government pension with no connection to any oligarcks. He had a long prior track record in Ukraine of being plodding and meticulous but honest.
We keep hearing from you and other like you – “shokin was corrupt” – then evidence should be easy to come by.
“John has previously stated plainly his suspicion of any news he doesn’t want to believe as well as his disregard for NOAA scientist for no clear reason other than their implied contradiction of his Dear Leader’s weather pronouncements. He has no credibility.”
Burning more of your integrity with false accusations.
I am mistrustful of those who have been constantly wrong in the past.
That is a logical and rational position.
I am also mistrustful of those who make claims like – “lots of others agree” – such as your Shokin nonsense.
By your logic we should be able to conclude that Trump is a great person – because 60+M people support him.
Any scientist anywhere is entitled to a small amount of credibility by virtue of meeting the requirements to be a scientist.
Though would note that is nothing more than having a STEM degree.
So I guess I am a scientist too.
More credibility than the ordinary person is not a high standard.
NOAA has a reputation for error. Partly because they are in a field where the probability of error is high.
Partly because as is becoming unfortunately common in alot of science – especially science that depends on govenrment funding,
they are increasingly driven by politics and ideology rather than science.
You have ranted about Trump having failed horribly regarding C19. While we might disagree on the impact of those failures.
and they fact that you misrepresent things constantly, I will agree that Trump has made many C19 mistakes.
So has absolutely every expert.
I can listen to Faucci, Birx, or myriads of other experts, and ultimately make decsions for myself.
Expert does not mean God – as you claim it to be.
If it does – Trump is a “god” because he has on occasion acted better than the “experts”.
You keep trying to make things about Trump.
It is not, it is about you.
You make most of the allegations of lies, and error – the burden of proof is on you.
You just made a statement about me that you claim is plainly true, that is not.
Black Lives Matter
White Lives Matter
Blue Lives Matter
All Lives Matter
If you disagree, shame on you, because you are a racist.
There are issues beyond statues and public art.
If the police stand back and watch while one lawless act goes on, We will see other lawless acts.
Once mobs resort to lawlessness, it escalates.
There is some effort to try to put a political spin on this – it is the fault of antifa, or BLM or the shutdown, or white supremecists.
It is possible that some part of that is true.
But mostly this is just anarchy. There is plenty of evidence that those destroying things – are clueless.
This is much like Mao and the cultural revolution – just destroy.
It is not going well, It does not end well.
The North versus the South. People up North think that their itShay doesn’t stink and that all the people down South are bigots. Yet there are bigots up North.
Randy Newman wrote and dang a song called “Rednecks’. Please look it up on Google. Type in “lyris- Randy Newman, Rednecks.’
You will find the lyrics printed on the page. The lyrics describe black folks living up North in cages. So racism can be all over.
I live in NC. The locals seldom use the N word. If you are on a parking lot at the stores you might hear someone discussing something with another person close by. But you can hear them several cars over. They might say the N word and they so do with a New York accent.
They moved down here from NY to retire.
What a fantasy.
Liberty2nd, you don’t think there are any people in a city like Boston that have any prejudices? I just can’t believe it myself.
Andrea is such a shallow, superficial person..so are we sure she wasn’t yelling: “Where’s the fashion police?”
I am shocked and clutching my pearls!! Asking for police assistance? Lefists are the ones who want to defund them. Doubt that will actually happen but since leftists do not ever allow a crisis to go to waste watch for calls to federalize them.
In the meantime, I would suggest that Mitchell and Norton call an SJW or the glorious, masked, wonderful warriors of the antifa. Wonder how each would deal with such a person? SJW – hugs, therapy, consciousness raising? Antifa – beat down?
antonio
Since when do our police agencies have the latitude to tolerate vandalism depending on who commits it, and the nature of the thing vandalized? Protecting human life takes precedence over protecting property, but I don’t remember police having a permit to stand by while vandalism happens.
As far as rushing a news correspondent and a politician… what, precisely happened? Were Ms. Mitchell or Delegate Holmes assaulted, except possibly to the degree having one’s personal space invaded or being touched against one’s will is constructively an assault? I’m just asking because two people shot in the “CHOP” police-free zone of Seattle might ask the same question. One’s even alive. One, unfortunately, isn’t.