J Thomas on May 15, 2011, 10:39:50 am
Tucci has evidence -- the emails -- that shows the big names in AGW lied, and conspired to lie.

Why would we read any further works by, or associated with, proven liars?

He's arguing that all peer-reviewed scientific journals that published climate science were in on the conspiracy and refused to publish work that contradicted their claims. He has not claimed that the vast majority of scientists who did climate science were faking their results.

So, if you are doing climate science and you get publishable results, do you send them to a prestigious journal? Sure, why not? If the peer review process lets you publish, do you then publish? Sure, why not? Is your work fraudulent because you published in a journal with a bad peer review process (which by assumption is true of every prestigious journal you could use)?

See the problem?

Let me make a hypothetical case. We have 100 scientific studies. 50 of them can be interpreted as implying that AGW is false. 50 of them can be interpreted as implying that AGW is true. All of them are done honestly. All of them are sent to a journal with a dishonest peer review. The 50 that oppose AGW are rejected, and the 50 that support AGW are published. Some people then claim that AGW is proven and supported by all the evidence. (But aren't the other 50 published in journals that don't do peer review? Maybe not, those don't publish everything they receive.) So far, so bad. Then Tucci comes along. He says that everything that has been published is bogus because it was published in bad journals. So out of our 100 honest scientific studies, that need careful interpretation, we have none left. Half of them got rejected for bogus reasons by bad peer review. The other half got rejected for bogus reasons by Tucci.

Tucci's reasoning is circular. He believes he knows that AGW is wrong. So he knows that any scientific study which fails to reject AGW must be bogus. And so he is unwilling to look at any evidence unless it supports his prejudice.

That is not evidence in favor of AGW. Just because there are people who are utterly prejudiced and present wrong bogus arguments, does not show that their conclusions are wrong. They could still be right by accident.

When the argument itself is wrong, that means it does not tell us about the conclusion. Lawyers have a stupid lawyer trick they play, where they say that when the other lawyer's claim is wrong it means that they must be right. It convinces stupid juries. Scientists, of course, know better. Nobody who understands scientific method would fall for that one.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2011, 11:26:59 am by J Thomas »

Tucci78 on May 15, 2011, 01:08:32 pm
I do point out that Tucci admitted my criticisms. He has evidence that he believes shows a small minority of AGW papers had improper peer review. He considers this evidence that all AGW papers which have had peer review are worthless themselves.

He claims that AGW is wrong, therefore every AGW paper must be wrong and its data must be wrong.

And he accuses various others of not understanding scientific method....

Who the hell said I was using "scientific method" in my assessment of the "pal reviewed" faux "scientific literature" supportive of (and derived from) the AGW hypothesis?

This is simply the same kind of deductive reasoning at the heart of the diagnostic process, which makes use of a discerned general characteristic as a screen to sort those instances in which the pursuit of definitive investigation is needed.

I haven't voiced a claim that the AGW bogosity is "wrong", but merely an observation that the hypothesis fails, and fails spectacularly.  Moreover, even if we accept the contentions of the AGW fraudsters - both the political prostitutes and the "climatologist" pimps - that their "Harry_Read_Me" worthless data files (see http://tinyurl.com/yldb9jz) and their guaranteed-to-generate-a-"hockey stick"-graph-out-of-random-"red noise"-numbers computer models are reliable, not even the complete cessation of CO2 release into the atmosphere (in other words, "hold your breath, folks!") can prevent the continuation of the awful-horrible-nasty global warming trend they're attributing to anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

Whatever warming trend the planet is likely to experience in the next couple of centuries has preponderantly to do with that big ball of fusing hydrogen 93 million miles away, and effectively damn-all to do with the combustion of petrochemical fuels.

When we speak of whatever somebody "believes" in the context of the AGW hypothesis, the belief - as in religious belief, without factual support - is entirely on the side of the people who have gotten suckered by the pimps masquerading as "climatologists" and the authoritarian goons who have leveraged this faked-up catastrophe to plunder you.

The application of real "scientific method" to the notion of anthropogenic global warming has simply not yet taken place in any of the allegedly "scientific" literature uttered by the AGW caliphate. That's the problem with it.

That's what makes it necessary to treat it, as I'd analogized, the way you would treat "a hand grenade assembled for you by somebody who wants you dead."

Oh, yeah.  You're misstating my contention.  It's not that "a small minority of AGW papers had improper peer review" but that any publication which supports the AGW hypothesis, and all those which receive the AGW hypothesis as "settled science," have got to be considered invalid ipso facto until they can be properly - honestly - reviewed and corrected.

Most of them will simply be stricken from the literature. 

And you really don't understand "scientific method" at all, do you?
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

Tucci78 on May 15, 2011, 01:48:43 pm
  He's arguing that all peer-reviewed scientific journals that published climate science were in on the conspiracy and refused to publish work that contradicted their claims. He has not claimed that the vast majority of scientists who did climate science were faking their results.

So, if you are doing climate science and you get publishable results, do you send them to a prestigious journal? Sure, why not? If the peer review process lets you publish, do you then publish? Sure, why not? Is your work fraudulent because you published in a journal with a bad peer review process (which by assumption is true of every prestigious journal you could use)?

See the problem?

Let me make a hypothetical case. We have 100 scientific studies. 50 of them can be interpreted as implying that AGW is false. 50 of them can be interpreted as implying that AGW is true. All of them are done honestly. All of them are sent to a journal with a dishonest peer review. The 50 that oppose AGW are rejected, and the 50 that support AGW are published. Some people then claim that AGW is proven and supported by all the evidence. (But aren't the other 50 published in journals that don't do peer review? Maybe not, those don't publish everything they receive.) So far, so bad. Then Tucci comes along. He says that everything that has been published is bogus because it was published in bad journals. So out of our 100 honest scientific studies, that need careful interpretation, we have none left. Half of them got rejected for bogus reasons by bad peer review. The other half got rejected for bogus reasons [according to] Tucci.

Tucci's reasoning is circular. He believes he knows that AGW is wrong. So he knows that any scientific study which fails to reject AGW must be bogus. And so he is unwilling to look at any evidence unless it supports his prejudice.

You really, really don't get it, do you? Moreover, you insist - and I'm beginning to think that the descriptor "psychopathically" is becoming increasingly useful in characterizing your insistence - that what someone "believes" matters one goddam little bit about the implementation of scientific method.

What I know is that the burden of proof - especially in light of the extraordinary contentions being foisted by the AGW hoaxers - is on the people who advance the assertion, and that the people pushing the AGW fraud have failed to support that burden. 

They have, in fact, not only evaded that obligation but - as the Climategate CRU communications confirmed beyond any doubt - they have systematically combined (the word "conspired" enters here) to coordinate a deliberate evasion of professional responsibility.  Nothing they have done in the past couple of decades could possibly be excused as an inadvertency, an honest mistake, a simple blunder.

I'd welcome Counselor Sandfort's professional opinion as to whether or not this indicates criminal mens rea on the part of the "climatologists" guilty of this concerted breach of professional ethics. Inasmuch as their grant applications - for billions of currency units ripped off from taxpayers all over the globe - were predicated on knowing lies, it's not unreasonable to consider theft of value by fraud as among their crimes.

That is not evidence in favor of AGW. Just because there are people who are utterly prejudiced and present wrong bogus arguments, does not show that their conclusions are wrong. They could still be right by accident.

Whee! So that's your whole grasping-at-the-very-last-straw fumble to keep the AGW fraud going?  "They could still be right by accident"?

The authoritarian politicians, their bankster "carbon exchange" bagmen, the "climatologist" con artists - all of these and more are imposing aggressive violent force upon every innocent person they can get their claws into, and you're now saying that us victims should shut up and let them do it to us because "They could still be right by accident."   

Okay.  J Thomas, I herewith declare - on the basis of no investigation whatsoever, without evidence that can be examined by anyone, on the basis of my own "data," processed by way of methods I refuse to disclose - that you are an ambidextrous albino with achondroplastic dwarfism, allergic to certain exotic tropical plants, sexually fixated upon barnyard fowl (with a leather fetish thrown in, just for giggles), a staunch Republican, and a life member of the John Birch Society.

What the hell. I "could still be right by accident," couldn't I?
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

J Thomas on May 15, 2011, 02:44:19 pm

Quote
Tucci's reasoning is circular. He believes he knows that AGW is wrong. So he knows that any scientific study which fails to reject AGW must be bogus. And so he is unwilling to look at any evidence unless it supports his prejudice.


Quote
What I know is that the burden of proof - especially in light of the extraordinary contentions being foisted by the AGW hoaxers - is on the people who advance the assertion, and that the people pushing the AGW fraud have failed to support that burden. 

See, what you are doing here is not scientific method but something else. "Burden of proof" is not about science. Science is about testing hypotheses and noting evidence which is compatible with them or which is not compatible with them. In general hypotheses cannot be proven and the "burden of proof" is not on anybody to prove them.

That is not evidence in favor of AGW. Just because there are people who are utterly prejudiced and present wrong bogus arguments, does not show that their conclusions are wrong. They could still be right by accident.


Whee! So that's your whole grasping-at-the-very-last-straw fumble to keep the AGW fraud going?  "They could still be right by accident"?

No, you didn't read carefully. I'm saying that just because you present bogus arguments that no sensible person could accept, that is not evidence that AGW is right. Despite your failings in logic etc, you could still be right by accident.

Someone can make a confused wrong argument in favor of democracy, or AnCap, or national socialism, or whatever, and their failed argument does not tell us much at all about whether democracy, AnCap, national socialism etc are themselves wrong. Ideas stand or fall independent of their worst proponents.

Tucci78 on May 15, 2011, 03:25:57 pm
Tucci's reasoning is circular. He believes he knows that AGW is wrong. So he knows that any scientific study which fails to reject AGW must be bogus. And so he is unwilling to look at any evidence unless it supports his prejudice.

What I know is that the burden of proof - especially in light of the extraordinary contentions being foisted by the AGW hoaxers - is on the people who advance the assertion, and that the people pushing the AGW fraud have failed to support that burden.

See, what you are doing here is not scientific method but something else. "Burden of proof" is not about science. Science is about testing hypotheses and noting evidence which is compatible with them or which is not compatible with them. In general hypotheses cannot be proven and the "burden of proof" is not on anybody to prove them.

"Burden of proof" is about reasoned argument in general. "Science" is indeed "about testing hypotheses" to establish whether they explain observed phenomena and provide reliable prescriptive guidance for future action, but the presentation of scientific investigation comes within the context of reasoned argument in order that it influence purposeful human action.

If there is adherence to "scientific method," it is likely that the testing of the hypothesis in question will provide valid, reproducible, reliable support for the explanation of the physical universe which the hypothesis was devised to deliver.  Willful and deceitful evasion of scientific method is a powerful presumptive indicator that the hypothesis has not been tested, and therefore has no assurance of reliability.

The argument to which the "Burden of proof" issue pertains here is not only whether or not the AGW hypothesis is valid (although because there has been a deliberate, systematic evasion of scientific method throughout the course of the AGW pimps' simulation of professional integrity, there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to assume that the alleged validity of this explanation for global climatic warming is in any sense genuine) but also whether the policy recommendations - and aggressively violent plundering political assaults upon individual human beings' rights - derived from the fraudulent AGW "catastrophe" caterwauling are in any way justified by the snake-oil "science" of the AGW cabal.

The actions to which people are being forced in the pursuit of "reducing mankind's carbon footprint" are glaringly devoid of support.  The "Burden of proof" pertains to those measures, which are far, far more pernicious, more costly, more destructive of human life and well-being than are the AGW pimps' peculations in their fraudulent government grant funding applications.

That is not evidence in favor of AGW. Just because there are people who are utterly prejudiced and present wrong bogus arguments, does not show that their conclusions are wrong. They could still be right by accident.

Whee! So that's your whole grasping-at-the-very-last-straw fumble to keep the AGW fraud going?  "They could still be right by accident"?

No, you didn't read carefully. I'm saying that just because you present bogus arguments that no sensible person could accept, that is not evidence that AGW is right. Despite your failings in logic etc, you could still be right by accident.

Someone can make a confused wrong argument in favor of democracy, or AnCap, or national socialism, or whatever, and their failed argument does not tell us much at all about whether democracy, AnCap, national socialism etc are themselves wrong. Ideas stand or fall independent of their worst proponents.

Hm.  Not only ambidextrous and albino, but also obtuse, ain'tcha? Isn't this the vaunted "Nurmee-Nurmee-Nurmee-I'm-not-listening!" defense?

Could you please explain your reasoning why the government thugs' desired shut-down of industrial civilization should be meekly received by honest human beings by virtue of your sole remaining argument, that the AGW fraudsters "could still be right by accident"?

Do you bring your sick and vomiting child to the doctor and hope that he'll come up with a diagnosis and treatment "by accident"?

Well, hell. I think it's safe to bet that you would.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2011, 04:05:07 pm by Tucci78 »
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

sam on May 15, 2011, 03:57:24 pm
He's arguing that all peer-reviewed scientific journals that published climate science were in on the conspiracy and refused to publish work that contradicted their claims.

In the climategate files, we have insider information as to how peer review worked in practice.

We also know that each of the journals violated their own rules in publishing climate science papers.  The major way that they violated their own rules is that most of them had rules that all data required for the paper's conclusions be made available, if not in the paper itself.  This rule is not enforced in climate science, nor in any political area of science, and every day more and more of science becomes political, though geology and astronomy are still mostly OK.

Peer review, in practice, means that if you rock the boat, you get in trouble.  So no one rocks the boat.  Since peer review was implemented in the late forties, early fifties, science has become very like professional wrestling.  If you deviate from the kayfabe, you upset everyone you are dealing with and are apt to become unemployed.  It is a conspiracy in the way and to the extent that professional wrestling is a conspiracy.  The truth is not altogether hidden, but is somewhat plausibly deniable.  Kayfabrication is not centrally planned by a handful of conspirators sitting around a coffee table, but certain people have a lot more influence on the kayfabe than other people - and the number of people whose influence is predominant on any major part of the story line is small enough to sit around a coffee table and feel each other's breath.

The era of rapid progress in science seems to have ended at roughly the time that peer review came to be widely applied, though technology continues to advance rapidly.  Lately, however, much of that technological advance has been coming from outside the west, for example e-ink which enabled asians to create the kindle and similar devices, and blue light semiconductor lasers, which make DVDs possible.

He has not claimed that the vast majority of scientists who did climate science were faking their results.

Some of the people whose writings appear in the climate gate files were faking their results in the sense of adding ad hoc "corrections" to make the answers come out right.  Everyone whose writings appears in the climategate files was, if not faking their results, cherry picking their results, for example selecting certain trees and not others as indications of past temperatures.  They did not simply make up their results, but of a very large number of trees cored, they found a few trees whose cores told the story they wanted to tell, and ignored the vast majority of trees whose cores contradicted the story they wanted to tell.

So, if you are doing climate science and you get publishable results, do you send them to a prestigious journal? Sure, why not?

If your results disagree with the kayfabe, they will not be published.

Tucci78 on May 16, 2011, 09:33:38 am
So, if you are doing climate science and you get publishable results, do you send them to a prestigious journal? Sure, why not?

If your results disagree with the kayfabe, they will not be published.

Well, that's about the single most economical way of effectively describing the situation I've yet read.
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

SandySandfort on May 17, 2011, 09:34:47 am
Once more time, with feeling!

Okay, I am temporarily free from fighting fires. I am going to revisit the slip-and-fall limited liability scenario. Now, with more details!

The following is a simplified version of the situation I wrote before. I have added stipulations to get past all of the “what ifs” so that we can focus on the underlying principles of arbitration of liability in a market anarchy like that of the Belt in EFT.

At the end, I will ask you to post how you would decide the case (“I'm not an arbiter, but I play one in EFT”) and explain the your thinking (“show your work”) in terms of the ZAP, law, equity or whatever theory of dispute resolution you think is dispositive of the issues in the case. If you think the facts and stipulations still need further clarification, please do NOT spin off into “what if” land. Just ask a specific question and I will answer it, okay?

Here we go:

Let's use a farmers co-op as an example. The co-op is a group of 100 farmers who have entered into an agreement to act as a single business entity. They have adopted the joint stock company as their business model. Each of the farmers buys shares in the co-op. The reason they joined together is because they want to eliminate the middlemen--food brokers and grocery store owners--to increase their profits from the sale of their agricultural products. So they create the "Farmer Co-op, Limited" (Co-op). The Co-op will buy trucks to distribute its products to its own grocery stores.

All fine and well, but what if there is a slip-and-fall in one of their stores? Without some limitation on liability, all the farmers could be jointly and severally liable for a huge judgment against them. That means a judgment creditor can sue and collect from any farmer he chooses. So before going into business, the farmers decide to limit their liability by adding the word “limited” to the company name and by prominently posting a sign outside each Co-op store that says, "The Farmer Co-op, Limited, hereby puts you on notice that by entering these premises, you agree that any judgment arising from any accident in the store due to the negligence or willful act of Farmer Direct employees will be limited to the assets of the Co-op and that the individual shareholders of the Co-op may not be held individually liable."

A little old lady (LOL) shopper slips on some liquid spilled on the floor by Bobby, a stocker, employed by the  employees, who then didn't bother to clean it up. She sues everyone and his brother in arbitration. She sues Bobby, the Co-op, farmers 1-100 and their heirs and assign. She sues their dog.

LOL, Co-op, all 100 farmers and Bobby enter into binding arbitration. The parties agree to the following stipulations:

+ There was no contributory negligence on the part of the LOL

+ Bobby was negligent

+ No other store employee were liable

+ LOL's injuries amounted to $2,000,000

+ Co-op net worth is $1,000,000

+ The farmers have individual net worths ranging from $1000 to $1,000,000

+ Bobby's net worth is $1,000

+ This is the first act of negligence committed by Bobby

+ Bobby had a positive background check

+ Bobby and all employees were given customer safety classes

+ The Co-op had never had any customer accident before

+ LOL saw, read and understood Co-op's notice of limited liability

In arbitration LOL argues common law respondiat superior “the master is liable for the torts of the servant.”

Co-op argues limited liability by notice and, therefore assumption of the risk.

LOL argues that in equity, there are limitations on what an owner may do to an invitee. By being open to the public the Co-op implicitly cedes certain rights, including the right to limit its liability.

Assuming you are the arbiter in this case, what liability would you find, in each of the defendants, Bobby, Co-op, Farmers? Upon what principles and what reasoning do you base your decision?

I am vary curious to see if a consensus emerges or if your responses are all over the landscape. I'm pretty sure I know what the commies would decide, but I am not sure about the rest of you.

Okay, have at it.


spudit on May 17, 2011, 11:00:54 am
A quick one but someone has to be first.

I assume the store or coop have no insurance against such an action. Also, that there are no legal firewalls between coop and store.

First the arbiter gets the scale right; removes the emotional aspect. What are her real damages, an ER visit or a life changing broken hip? Sure add the emotional trauma in later as needed but do it to scale.

Did she see the note, can that be proven?

Was there an intent to harm?

Bottom line from me. Understand the physical damages by medical records. Understand how it happened by interviews. By all means fix the injury, fire the clerk, give her just enough to go away.

No one will be very happy but they will be happy enough. LOL wants more, the coop wants to pay less and Bobby is out a job. So be it.

More from others coming I am sure.

 
« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 11:11:03 am by spudit »
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

Ike on May 17, 2011, 12:06:55 pm
I agree that, in a 'market anarchy' - charming phrase by the way - there are no methods of limiting liability because such limitations require a government fiat creating such limitations. 

A lot of doubter say that, without any support, yet don't seem to be able to address my quite realistic, co-op, slip-and-fall, limited liability disclaimer, arbitration scenario. Care to give it a shot? Who wins, plaintiff or defendant, and why?

Let me re-state the facts in your hypothetical, to be certain I have them correctly in mind.  We're assuming a legal context in which there are no forms of business organization legally recognized which limit the legal liability of a business' owner(s) for any civil claim for damages.  Factuall, a farmers' cooperative is seeking a means to limit their liability and attempt to do so by simply posting notices at the entrances and various palces within limiting their liability.  Someone enters to shop or conduct other business and slips on something and falls, and are thereby injured.  They file in an arbitration-style court and the question is who wins and why.

First issue:  in an AnCap society, from what source do legal causes of action arise?  There cannot be, by definition, any statutory causes of action as there is no authority to issue such a statute.  So, from 'common law' sources.  Whose?  English?  Spanish? American?  I don't know enough about Spanish 'common law' - and in fact am uncertain that there is any such thing in those countries whose legal systems derive from that of Imperial Spain - so I won't assume that is their source.  We're left with English and/or American, if we're to talk about legal systems with which we are likely to have a common knowledge and understanding.  In American common law, each state has its own separate body of such law.  (I acknowledge that the Federal judiciary currently claims with great frequency to be deciding cases consonant with a 'common law of the nation', but that is pure sophistry; and an entirely different discussion.)  In nearly none of those states was there any common law right of action for a slip and fall whose cause was alleged to have been an act of negligence on the part of the property owner or his agents. (I say, "nearly", because I have not researched all the states, but in the course of my work have researched some twelve states' laws on that issue; thank Bog for computer searches, eh?)  In every state (other than Louisiana whose predicate legal system was the Napoleonic Code), such causes of action for negligence were either created by statute or invented by an appeals court when faced with a sympathetic plaintiff whose lawyers failed to plead alternative causes of action and who would have therefore lost on appeal, but for the court's invention.

Therefore the answer to your question would depend upon whether - and how - an AnCap society's legal system would come to a cause of action for negligence.   Assuming that there is no cause of action for the slip and fall caused by defendant's negligence, plaintiff loses because there is no legally cognizable cause of action for their loss.  I would take the position that causes of action for damages caused by negligence would not exist in the hypothesized system, because they are not a part of the 'common law' causes of action, all of which require an intentional act by a defendant or her agent in order to sue and recover.  Only by assuming that there is such a cause of action, then we can get to the issue of whether defendant's unilateral claim by declaration to limited liability can be a defense.

Second issue:  can a defendant in a suit for personal injury assert a defense of limited liability under these facts?  In order to do so, the asserted defense must somehow bar plaintiff's recovery, in whole or in part.  Given the absence of any statutory limited liability defense, can a unilateral assertion of no or limited liability succeed?  For the plaintiff:  Your assertion that simply by posting notices, any potential plaintiff assumes for herself the risk of being negligently injured, doesn't prove the point, but only re-states the issue.  I say that because of the notion referred to in slang as "adhesion contracts", which stands for the notion that some contractual provisions benefiting a large company against an individual ought not stand up in court because the individual has little or no practical choice, if he desires the company's services or product, than to accept the highly disfavorable terms.  Not a perfect fit, but the notion remains that it 'just isn't right'.  Furthermore, that argument relies upon the existance of an implied contract between a customer and the  Co-Op, the terms of which may be unilaterally amended by the Co-Op by posting the notices and a customer entering the store counting as acceptance of the amendment.  For the defendant:  the owner(s) of a business may set any terms and conditions for the purchase and use of their products and/or services as they choose.  So long as a potential customer knows what those terms and conditions are - in this case - prior to entering onto the premises of the Co-Op, then the defendants must win if their notice is sufficient to apprise the potential customer of those terms and conditions.  (I deliberately avoid issues about languages, literacy of the plaintiff and sufficiency of the notice.  This post is too long already.)

Defendants win, because no cause of action for negligent infliction of personal injuries can exist in the hypothesized society.


mellyrn on May 17, 2011, 01:00:07 pm
This arbitrator would assign Bobby to work for LOL (for how long & such, I'd need way more background info on this particular community).  Personally, I think the matter is solely between LOL and Bobby anyway.  If there were some way for an employer to guarantee excellence in every employee, then I'd think the coop owed something, but there isn't, so they don't -- since this is a first offense and the employees do get safety training, coop has done what it could.

If it were my coop, though, I'd have offered to help from the first, as good community relations.

Further, this arbitrator wants to know why LOL chose suing everybody as her first move, rather than going to the coop seeking help and trying to work something out.  If I thought there was some reason why the coop should be involved -- maybe, Why did no other employee clean the spill? -- I'd find out what the coop would have offered, had they been approached for help, and then award half that to LOL.

I don't give a rap about anyone's common law.  What I'm interested in is what will encourage community good will and cooperation and what will drive wedges and create resentments.  Shit happens.  Simply being alive means some assumption of risk of that shit, so right off the bat I don't see that LOL is entitled to have all her loss made good (though it could all be made good if the giver so wished).  Awarding only half of what the coop would have provided if they'd been approached cooperatively:  that's to encourage future mutual good will practices and to discourage future looting-by-lawsuit.

Ike on May 17, 2011, 01:14:34 pm
I don't give a rap about anyone's common law.  What I'm interested in is what will encourage community good will and cooperation and what will drive wedges and create resentments.  Shit happens.  Simply being alive means some assumption of risk of that shit, so right off the bat I don't see that LOL is entitled to have all her loss made good (though it could all be made good if the giver so wished).  Awarding only half of what the coop would have provided if they'd been approached cooperatively:  that's to encourage future mutual good will practices and to discourage future looting-by-lawsuit.

First, this would be a civil action, not a criminal action, so there is no 'offense'.  Second, '...what will encourage community good will and cooperation...' would, in the hypothesized society, arise over time, in the form of .. a common law, which is nothing more nor less than the net result of many years of judicial decisions - yes and jury verdicts as well - by folks who are trying to reach just such a result as community good will and cooperation.  Societies which, in real life, have attempted to compel good will and cooperation or impose some ruling group's notions of what constitutes those things have failed miserably in their attempts.  It is my understanding that we're discussing the methods by which a fair and just society might be arrived at; the process, not the end result.  Too bad that you choose to ignore the results of hundreds of years of the trial and error struggles of people trying to reach the goal we all seek.  They didn't always decide from the 'best' motives and were not always deciding 'impartially', but over time, in a free society, the best wins out.  Attempts to impose someone's - or some group's - notions of good will and cooperation will, inevitably and in the very acts necessary to impose them, drive wedges and create resentments between groups of people.  More specifically, between those who get to decide and those who are imposed upon by the decisions.

J Thomas on May 17, 2011, 01:17:06 pm

Let's use a farmers co-op as an example. The co-op is a group of 100 farmers who have entered into an agreement to act as a single business entity. They have adopted the joint stock company as their business model. Each of the farmers buys shares in the co-op. The reason they joined together is because they want to eliminate the middlemen--food brokers and grocery store owners--to increase their profits from the sale of their agricultural products. So they create the "Farmer Co-op, Limited" (Co-op). The Co-op will buy trucks to distribute its products to its own grocery stores.

.... the farmers decide to limit their liability by adding the word “limited” to the company name and by prominently posting a sign outside each Co-op store that says, "The Farmer Co-op, Limited, hereby puts you on notice that by entering these premises, you agree that any judgment arising from any accident in the store due to the negligence or willful act of Farmer Direct employees will be limited to the assets of the Co-op and that the individual shareholders of the Co-op may not be held individually liable."

A little old lady (LOL) shopper slips on some liquid spilled on the floor by Bobby, a stocker, employed by the  employees, who then didn't bother to clean it up. She sues everyone and his brother in arbitration. She sues Bobby, the Co-op, farmers 1-100 and their heirs and assign. She sues their dog.

LOL, Co-op, all 100 farmers and Bobby enter into binding arbitration. The parties agree to the following stipulations:

+ There was no contributory negligence on the part of the LOL

+ Bobby was negligent

+ No other store employee were liable

+ LOL's injuries amounted to $2,000,000

+ Co-op net worth is $1,000,000

+ The farmers have individual net worths ranging from $1000 to $1,000,000

+ Bobby's net worth is $1,000

+ This is the first act of negligence committed by Bobby

+ Bobby had a positive background check

+ Bobby and all employees were given customer safety classes

+ The Co-op had never had any customer accident before

+ LOL saw, read and understood Co-op's notice of limited liability

What is LOL's net worth?

How much of the care for LOL's injuries has already been spent? Like, there could be some immediate emergency care which was provided, and with her condition stabilised she could need considerable work to be made whole, or some increased expense to survive in a crippled state.

What is LOL's expected future lifetime earnings?

What is Bobby's expected future lifetime earnings?

How much capital does Bobby need to function? (Like, to keep a job he needs presentable clothing, maybe a computer or equivalent, a cellphone or equivalent, money for transportation? etc. It might be counterproductive to take the money he needs to make money with. If his only bankrupt choice is a barracks bunk at the pig farm, but by keeping control of a little money he could make much more, that's worth paying attention to.)
« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 01:43:15 pm by J Thomas »

J Thomas on May 17, 2011, 01:34:38 pm
This arbitrator would assign Bobby to work for LOL (for how long & such, I'd need way more background info on this particular community).

That seems like a good thing to do, assuming that Bobby looks like an honest, conscientious worker. If he is undependable then it is not at all appropriate to tell LOL she has to let him into her home. Particularly if she is crippled due to his action, it might be unreasonable for her to be dependent on his assistance for her survival, unless she trusts him.

It might make more sense for him to get some other job and pay part of his income to her, than to maintain lots of close personal contact. Or it might work out fine for him to become her personal assistant. It depends.

Quote
If it were my coop, though, I'd have offered to help from the first, as good community relations.

Agreed! Though if LOL says she'll take whatever is offered and then sue for whatever I'm worth, that would give me pause.

Quote
Further, this arbitrator wants to know why LOL chose suing everybody as her first move, rather than going to the coop seeking help and trying to work something out.

Good question. One obvious answer -- if she knows that she needs $2 million and she knows the co-op only has $1 million, then she needs another $1 million and she has no obvious way to get it. It's kind of understandable that a woman who in one second goes from perfectly functional to a crippled little ball of pain, might be ready to do almost anything. Not necessarily moral or ethical or legal or practical, but understandable.

SandySandfort on May 17, 2011, 01:43:21 pm
I assume the store or coop have no insurance against such an action. Also, that there are no legal firewalls between coop and store.

Correct. This scenario isn't about how one mitigates damages, but rather about limiting liability in a market anarchy.

First the arbiter gets the scale right; removes the emotional aspect. What are her real damages, an ER visit or a life changing broken hip? Sure add the emotional trauma in later as needed but do it to scale.

Did she see the note, can that be proven?

Was there an intent to harm?

This questions are irrelevant to the arbiter. He has been handed a list of stipulations to which the parties have agreed. Those stipulations cover, or obviate the need for, the answers to your questions and concerns.

Thanks for playing (and especially for going first).

 

anything