RE: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Prop. 75

I'm late joining this conversation, just back from a funeral and catching up on 1000 e-mails. But I want to add my appreciation to Franklin for his contributions, including the Ellerman essay.

My sense is that, as is often the case, you and your interlocutors are speaking from somewhat different frames of reference. Denny and Sarosh, I suspect, are speaking implicitly from a legal framework not too far removed from our own, specifically a system of government-enforced monopoly on arbitration services. In that context, to try to operate with unlimited liability would be suicidal. But limited liability looks to me like a case of trying to undo the effects of one government intervention with another. In a more libertarian society, where arbitration agencies had to compete in terms of a reputation for fairness, presumably among the widest possible range of potential clients, I don't think we'd see $10,000,000 awards for hot coffee, and prior limitations on liability might well be unnecessary. Am I understanding your position here?

From the little I've seen here, you look like one of the kinds of people I'd most like to attract to the LP. Much as I agree that small business is one of our most persecuted minorities, I share your concern about the perception of the LP as the party of business (or any other specific constituency). Maybe if we identified ourselves as the Party of the Oppressed, we could do some useful outreach to both left and right, identifying small business (along with taxpayers, homeschoolers, etc.) as an oppressed group.

Hi Mike,

Nice to hear from you.

I also am wary of corporations; however, their limited liability
feature enables a wide number of shareholders to contribute capital
who otherwise would not for fear of personal liability. I believe
people are averse to personal liability whether decisions are made in
court or through arbitration.

Your other topic is my favorite: LP constituencies! Party of
the "downtroden"...I don't know. The word downtroden seems to me to
have acquired since the 30's a political meaning describing those who
cannot help themselves and should be helped by the government. Look
at the downtroden "victims of Katrina." The press was wild with
cries for *more* government intervention in the victims' lives.

I would prefer the LP be a party of "opportunity" for everyone,
downtroden or not.

Regards,

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Acree, Michael" <acreem@o...>
wrote:

I'm late joining this conversation, just back from a funeral and

catching up on 1000 e-mails. But I want to add my appreciation to
Franklin for his contributions, including the Ellerman essay.

My sense is that, as is often the case, you and your interlocutors

are speaking from somewhat different frames of reference. Denny and
Sarosh, I suspect, are speaking implicitly from a legal framework not
too far removed from our own, specifically a system of government-
enforced monopoly on arbitration services. In that context, to try
to operate with unlimited liability would be suicidal. But limited
liability looks to me like a case of trying to undo the effects of
one government intervention with another. In a more libertarian
society, where arbitration agencies had to compete in terms of a
reputation for fairness, presumably among the widest possible range
of potential clients, I don't think we'd see $10,000,000 awards for
hot coffee, and prior limitations on liability might well be
unnecessary. Am I understanding your position here?

From the little I've seen here, you look like one of the kinds of

people I'd most like to attract to the LP. Much as I agree that
small business is one of our most persecuted minorities, I share your
concern about the perception of the LP as the party of business (or
any other specific constituency). Maybe if we identified ourselves
as the Party of the Oppressed, we could do some useful outreach to
both left and right, identifying small business (along with
taxpayers, homeschoolers, etc.) as an oppressed group.

From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Franklin Schmidt
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 10:03 AM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Prop. 75

>
> 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,