Thanks Franklin....
You said: "inalienable": rights "That cannot be transferred to another
or other"
We aren't talking about transferring rights, we are talking about
expressing the limits of liability at a price.
You said: "If you buy an apple that was sprayed with a poisonous
pesticide, and you get sick as a result, do you think you should have
legal recourse?"
Current law does give the consumer legal recourse. Most product
liability policies today are $2M. Most businesses cannot even be in
business without liability insurance.
You said: "I would like to see consumer regulations replaced with
unlimited liability. This simply moves consumer protection from
government bureaucrats to the courts."
This isn't true. What would and is happening is that the system moves
the protection to the insurance companies...where it should be in these
kinds of issues.
You said: "Think of it this way:
-Lib-| |-me---------------------Dem---------------------|
Even though I am closer to Libertarians than Democrats, Libertarians
are so narrow that they won't accept my views. Democrats are far from
my views but they are broad enough accept a great variety of views.
Wouldn't this picture be better?
-Lib-----me-| |-----------------Dem---------------------|
I wish libertarians would become broader and unite all viewpoints that
value freedom."
Mike: Libertarians wish those who value liberty would appreciate that we
are extremely principled about the subject and deserve support and
respect even though some might not accept or understand our principled
positions or why are so important to us. Those who would disassociate
themselves from us in exchange for broad acceptability (largely because
Democrats and Republicans will do and say anything for your vote) aren't
really what we are about.
Thanks for participating in the discussion though.
Michael Denny
You said: "inalienable": rights "That cannot be transferred to
another
or other"
We aren't talking about transferring rights, we are talking about
expressing the limits of liability at a price.
Do you consider the protection of your person and property to be a
right (protected by the courts)? This is the right that you are
"alienating" when doing business with a limited liability company.
You said: "If you buy an apple that was sprayed with a poisonous
pesticide, and you get sick as a result, do you think you should
have
legal recourse?"
Current law does give the consumer legal recourse. Most product
liability policies today are $2M. Most businesses cannot even be in
business without liability insurance.
That's good, right? And it isn't "caveat emptor".
You said: "I would like to see consumer regulations replaced with
unlimited liability. This simply moves consumer protection from
government bureaucrats to the courts."
This isn't true. What would and is happening is that the system
moves
the protection to the insurance companies...where it should be in
these
kinds of issues.
I agree, and the purpose of the insurance companies to handle the
risks in court. So the two go together. Unlimited liability would
raise these insurance costs and would cause more pressure on companies
to be careful about what they sell, which would eliminate the need for
government regulations in this area.
Libertarians wish those who value liberty would appreciate that we
are extremely principled about the subject and deserve support and
respect even though some might not accept or understand our
principled
positions or why are so important to us. Those who would
disassociate
themselves from us in exchange for broad acceptability (largely
because
Democrats and Republicans will do and say anything for your vote)
aren't
really what we are about.
You have my respect but not my support. I won't support you unless
you support me. The Libertarian Party can be a principled, insular,
ineffective group, or it can be a broader and more effective group.
No individual would have to give up his principles for the Libertarian
Party to broaden. All that is required is to focus on areas of
agreement instead of areas of disagreement. This could be done by
requiring an overwhelming majority, say 20 to 1, for the Libertarian
Party to take a position on any issue. On issues like proposition 75,
I would like to see the Libertarian Party not take any position.