Auto insurance claims, accident reports.....?s

[xxmidianxx]

Thanks, but I have enough headaches and enough to do already with out adding an attorney to the mix again. Been there done that, too many times.:soapbox:

Took me 4 years to train (or attempt to train) the last one, LOL, and he nearly bankrupted me anyway. I am still cleaning up the mess that he left 5 years later.

Atleast yours didn't try and keep ALL your money and end up in prision over it. I think my last lawer got 20 years Fed time.

Ok I found a link to the story.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou070103_jj_cheatingattorney.403fc4f.html

 

[Ecomike]

Atleast yours didn't try and keep ALL your money and end up in prision over it. I think my last lawer got 20 years Fed time.

Ok I found a link to the story.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou070103_jj_cheatingattorney.403fc4f.html

Now that sounds like some one who could have used this advice I was given earlier:

"I STRONGLY urge for you to seek legal counsel."

LOL.:banghead:

 

[eflores]

lol i would have to agree....ian.....call that fool!

 

[5-90]

I'm a "senior paralegal." I've been doing it for 10 years now and have 2 certifications (wipee )

First no offense taken. I do enjoy the opportunity to attempt to clear-up the misconceptions that surround my professional world though.

Excellent. I've long enjoyed debate on an intellectual, vice a visceral, level!

Secondly, the rules, codes, laws, regulations, statutes, etc. are all written in plain, simple English. They are all readily available for anyone to read. Most are even annotated somewhere to provide a very simple explanation. I have never found any of the above written in anything other than plain, simple English, so I'm not quite sure what you're asking.

Dunno - I've seen an awful lot of Latin in legal writings. Perhaps I'm getting my wires crossed. But (and in reference to your next point,) the English language suffers from the worst sort of "fuzzy meaning" - even semanticians can't seem to agree on what something means. Probably why I've always preferred mathematica and logic - what you say in those two fields is just about universally agreed-upon, once you understand the symbology. The difference (in logic) between "if" and "iff" is perfectly clear!

From my perspective, and yes I freely admit that it is tainted by experience, and I do not mean this as a slight on anyone, the problem is not the system, it's the laziness of the citizens. The voluminous quantity of rules that have been written is, quite simply, daunting. When you combine that with the fact that English is a horribly stupid language with several meanings to the same word, it can become overwhelming.

Yes, it is. And, if "ignorance of the Law is no excuse for a violation," how are we meant to keep up with the laws to which we are subject? Just poring through everything extant is a full-time job, and Congresscritters are constantly passing more laws, in an effort to justify their position! Half the time, they don't even read what they're voting on! But, they're not worried, due to the principle of "legislative immunity"...

Not to mention the fact that the media has skewed the reality of it all into something that it is not.

Material for a separate discussion. I've been watching the direction that the mass-market media has been taking over the last twenty years or so, and I am singularly unimpressed (and thoroly displeased. "Unbiased media" no longer exists, in pretty much any form! "Truth in reporting?" Please...)

What amuses me is that people can complain about the law being complicated or too vast, but then turn around and recite every sport stat from every team that has ever played whatever sport. Or, perhaps, recall ever part on a Jeep XJ that can be upgraded, what parts to use to upgrade, where those parts can be obtained, how much it will cost, and a step-by-step procedure for accomplishing the upgrade.

Some validity to this analogy. I don't get a rusty tin damn about "professional sports" (apart from thinking that they are hideously overpaid!) but I will admit to some measure of guilt on the latter - although more in a general sense (I come from a long line of generalists. According to my wife; if I can't fix it, it ain't broke. Something she's found to come in handy quite often...)

This brings us back to the beginning. It is not the legal profession to blame, nor it is the law makers. It is the people that employ us. It is the people who want something for nothing. It is the people who put their own selfish desires above those of the community or nation as a whole. It is the people who have created this situation, not the legal profession or politicians.

Thanks for the clarification (below) of parens patriae - I didn't know that the permanent abdication of control (the situation of in loco parentis) had a separate phrase. However, the "something for nothing" and "abdication of responsibility" ideas are perfectly valid, along with the "false sense of entitlement" (kids these days are being told they're "special," but no reason why. They're given everything according to their whims, so the parents can rest. Frankly, I blame the demise of the single-income family for that, along with the increase in the incidence of broken homes. Again - fuel for another discussion, methinks.)

An example is that people want the right to bear arms. Then another groups comes along and wants to restrict those rights because of such and such, now this simple sentence has grown into a paragraph (kinda like this post huh?). Then some one who is now restricted wants to bear arms, so he/she attempts to get around the restrictions by challenging the meaning of the words used. Then that paragraph is expanded into a page so as to clarify. Then another group wants further restrictions based on these new definitions. Again, that simple idea is expanded and grows into a chapter. This goes on and on. Again, those of us who work to shape the laws are only doing so based on the bidding of others, we are not to blame.

An excellent example. The right to keep and bear arms was never intended to be restricted, which is why current attempts at restrictive it meet with such vitriol (from both sides!) "Shall not be infringed" is fairly easy to understand, and "shall" has a rather specific legal definition. "This is what you will/will not do. No options." Kinda like when writing Rules of Engagement (RoE's) for a limited conflict - there is a difference between "deadly force may be used in this situation" and "deadly force shall be used in this situation." The first gives the option to the shooter. The second takes it away (and confers responsibility to the writer of the RoEs, by the by. He's the ultimate decision-maker.)

This I must also disagree with....the need for legal specialization is immense! In my perfect world, there would only need to be ten laws...they just happen to be the Ten Commandments (even though I'm not a religious person per se). I have explained this problem above though. Too many people are too concerned with their personal agendas and protecting what they want regardless of the effect on others for this to work. Our society has become "the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many."

I honestly think that the "immense" need for legal specialisation (your word) is borne of the fact that the system has become so damned cumbersome. I've seen legal libraries - they're larger than medical libraries! If I turned my entire home into a legal library, I'd probably need to spill over into about half of the next house to fit the rest. The problem I have with this is that laws are a created system. I honestly can't see why it should need to be so complex! And, since most of the laws don't seem to apply to the people who write them, I'd like to propose one specifically for them - in order to pass a new law, you have to (as part of the measure) redact a law currently on the books. This should be easy enough for the first few years - how many laws do we have now that were passed a significant time ago - and no longer apply?

If you want to get rid of this system (which I am all for btw), you would first have to attack the doctrine of parens patreai. The notion that our government is our parent (when we are actually property of the US government) is what damages us the most.

Yah - but we first have to cultivate a general attitude of responsibility in the body politic. Easier said than done. It's a known fact that, the less you make people responsible for, the less they will be responsible for - and the act of taking away responsibility is self-perpetuating. It's easier to go down that path than to come back - and people will resist that. But, you are entirely correct - it's what needs to happen!

Just my opinion on all this mind you!

True, but you defend it well. I think I'm going to enjoy this debate...:read:

 

[Ecomike]

Excellent. I've long enjoyed debate on an intellectual, vice a visceral, level!

Dunno - I've seen an awful lot of Latin in legal writings. Perhaps I'm getting my wires crossed. But (and in reference to your next point,) the English language suffers from the worst sort of "fuzzy meaning" - even semanticians can't seem to agree on what something means. Probably why I've always preferred mathematica and logic - what you say in those two fields is just about universally agreed-upon, once you understand the symbology. The difference (in logic) between "if" and "iff" is perfectly clear!

A few thoughts to help stimulate the debate here. Perhaps we should say that current law is "Clear as MUD! LOL. Nothing like a good oxymoron to help clear up (LOL) the fog!

EPA does a great job of clearing things up where it redefines the English word SOLID, as it pertains to the EPA definition of Solid Waste, in CFR 40 (Code of Federal Regulations, hint, hint, Congress may right the laws, but a whole host of other idiots rite regulatory codes based on the congressional acts, to define what the law said and means, LOL.) But back to the word SOLID, EPA defines a SOLID waste as "any liquid, solid, semi-solid or containerized gaseous material that is disposed of", etc........So now, if it exists, basically the EPA calls it solid, LOL. That comes from an agency that is tasked with using scientific method and discipline to decide how best to protect the environment.

An excellent example. The right to keep and bear arms was never intended to be restricted, which is why current attempts at restrictive it meet with such vitriol (from both sides!) "Shall not be infringed" is fairly easy to understand, and "shall" has a rather specific legal definition.

OK, I just can't resist this one, devil made me do it, so here goes. Back to the debate about how English and the written law is so clear and concise, or should I say clear as MUD again. I can't wait for the Supreme court to one day decide out of left field that the right to bear arms does not refer to guns, but perhaps meant the right to keep the two arms you were born with, LOL. Reminds me of a line from the movie Oblivion! Ever see Oblivion 5-90? It was a satire comedy, mix of Star Trek and Gunsmoke on an alien planet.


I honestly think that the "immense" need for legal specialisation (your word) is borne of the fact that the system has become so damned cumbersome. I've seen legal libraries - they're larger than medical libraries! If I turned my entire home into a legal library, I'd probably need to spill over into about half of the next house to fit the rest.

Simple answer, we reached a point where 20% of the population could produce more than all the population could consume about 60 years ago, so we created massive waste, legalized parasites, and other such great inventions like tax accountants, to make people feel productive and busy so as to justify their incomes. Read De Lorian's 1970's biography that he wrote, I think it was called "On a Clear Day You See Detroit" IIRC. It was about how he came to realize that his career as an engineer was no longer about creating a better, longer lasting car, but about optimizing planned obsolesence so as to keep the wheels of industry in motion, less they stop and push us into another great depression.

 

[MischiefMan]

Now, see, I don't see that there is much of a debate here. We all seem to be saying basically the same thing, but approaching it from different angles. The worst part is that this is a circuitous discussion. If it continues, from it's current state, I will have moved to where 5-90's position is, 5-90 will have embarked on Economike's position, and well, by default, Economike will have no where left to go with his position but to point the finger at those who are truly to blame for this mess....those who believe they are entitled.

Oh, and for the record, while it is true that much of the law has used a LOT of Latin in the past, that is no longer the case. There are a few old school phrases that float around, but that is not the norm. Generally we use them when we want to "unbalance our opponent." Other times we use them because it is easier to get the point across using the archaic terms than it is to use plain English. As a matter-of-fact, it is now the legislative norm (I think it is actually in TX statute that laws are now to be written in plain English, I'd have to look that one up though) to write in simple terms and the words will use their common meaning. The heart of the problem here is that all languages evolve and what is common today will be outdated shortly.

Dialects and educational levels are a MAJOR contributor to the problem. People just don't speak English anymore. I am asked everyday to rephrase something because the words I have used are not understood. They are not foreign words either...this never ceases to amaze me. The worst part about my job is that I see people every day who do not want to think for themselves. I am constantly having to explain simple concepts to people because they do not want to think or understand. For the life of me I cannot figure out what is so hard to understand "The first, third, and fifth weekend of each month with the weekend beginning at 6:00 pm on Friday." My other favorite that people cannot grasp is "You have until the Monday following the expiration of 20 days to make an appearance and file a written response." Somehow the "Monday following the expiration of" is constantly lost on people. I hear "so, I have 20 days?" Uh...no LOL! (sorry personal rant there!!!)

Neither of those two examples are written in anything but plain English. "Normal" people do not speak plain English however is what I've learned. "Normal" people end sentences with prepositions. I do it when I post and talk to people because I don't want people to think I'm any more of a pompus arse than they already do. Poor Flores.....when we're IM'ing while I'm at work, i get stuck in "legalese" and write things such as "for which I went to the store." and he responds with "huh?"

Sadly, it is my firm belief that equity and common sense should keep everyone out of trouble with the law in any way, shape, or form. The problem with this (and the reason I said sadly), as I'm sure that Economike will quickly point out, is that no sense is common. Our logic makes sense to each of us, but will not necessarily make sense to the next person.

Take midian's grinder mishap for example. It made perfect sense to him to react a certain, calm, rational way. I personally think his logic is all jacked up because he didn't panic like a "normal" person would. It makes perfect sense to him why he acted the way he did, I just can't fathom being in that much control of my facilties in such a situation.

I pride myself on my logic and common-sense reasoning...I know that math and engineering is pure logic, reasoning and deduction...for the life of me I can't do either worth a flip!

As much as it pains me to agree with him, part of what Economike wrote is true. When the world moved away from being part of a whole to do anything and into specialization for hire, we domed our own existance into what it has become today.

Do we need massive libraries of legal text? Yes and no. As long as people only look out for their own best interest and act like idiots, yes, we need the laws (gawd I hate saying that). If people would accept responsibility for their own actions and not live outside their means (in the instant case, driving like an idiot when you cannot afford to make amends for your wrongs)...or don't drive if you cannot afford to fix your own car...we would not need the legal watch dogs.

It truly is the hypocracy that amazing. As I said, I'm guilty of this...when my car was hit I ran straight to the industry that I hold such disdain for to rectify the situation. I rationalize it to myself by saying that I am just working within the system that is in place until it is changed. I am now part of the problem rather than the solution as a result.

 

[5-90]

Does anyone apart from me find it ironic that a "legal professional" has nearly as much disdain for the complexities of the system as a layman?:shocked::exclamati

(That's leaving aside the whole "professional/amateur" vice "expert/novice" debate - there's a batch of horribly misused words!)

Dunno do - the example phrases you put forth made perfect sense to me. I don't see the problem either (then again, a 24-hour clock makes perfectly good sense to me, and I wear an analogue 24-hour watch. Only goes around once a day. I think on a 24-hour clock - have since I found out about it when I was six, and it made perfectly good sense to me then. I have fun showing people my watch when they ask me the time...)

Educational levels are an interesting problem. You see, I graduated high school twenty years ago - back when they still taught content and not presentation. "English as a second language" was a misnomer, and "politically correct" didn't exist. If you didn't absorb the material, you failed the course and had to take it over again. And, you'd damned well better understand English before you start taking other classes, or you'll end up behind. Your problem, not ours.

These days, they're more worried about not offending someone than actually teaching them. There is a huge mistake in trying to teach people in their "native language" than in trying to make English their "native language" (sorry - but you're here now. We all speak English, we advise you to as well. I'm tired of paying for your translators, and don't get me started on seeing DMV handbooks in thirty-farkin'-four langauages! No! Bad!)

A few years ago, I tutored someone to get them past the high school exit examination, maths section. I expected it to be considerably more difficult than it was. Someone explain to me why senior-level maths was roughly equivalent to what I was doing in fifth and sixth grade grammar school?

I know, I probably shouldn't call it "grammar school" anymore - they don't teach much grammar.

I took a college-level (not uni-level) trig course a few years back as well. I was the oldest student in the class - by twice! Some of the kids in class, I'd graduated high school before they were out of diapers - I just needed the refresher.

Amazingly, I was able to work problems with a slipstick and paper trig tables faster than they could work with calculators! And calculators were required as part of the course, and have been required in high school for several years now! Hah? If I were to have been caught with an "electronic calculator" in a maths course in high school, I'd have been booted with an F for the semester (which explains why I got good with an abacus or a slide rule - only electronic calculators were streng verboten. not mechanical calculators.)

By the by - ending a sentence with a preposition is a holdover from when Latin was still a major academic language. In Latin, it is impossible to end a sentence with a preposition, and Latin was considered the "ideal" language for quite some time. It is certainly possible in English (and several other languages,) and is not technically grammatically incorrect - what we're looking at here is a "legacy rule" more than anything else. People do it all the time because to alter sentence structor to not do so makes one sound rather stilted.

"The first, third, and fifth weekend of the month with the weekend beginning at 6:00PM on Friday" makes sense to me - but I can see how people would get tripped up. However, these same people understand me readily when I say "the third Thursday of next week" when referring to something that isn't going to happen, or something that I'll ignore when I get around to ignoring it, or just a simple case of "don't hold your breath - you won't last that long." Hell, I've been questioned far more often when I get asked the time, look at my watch, and say something like "twenty-one fifteen" than when I say "The third Thursday of next week." Go figure.

 

[MischiefMan]

Ah, now see, you were taught the "old school" ways....as was I. I'm only 38, but my education started in Michigan, which, no offense meant to anyone..there are people here who make me feel stupid all the time, apparently was several years ahead of what was being taught in the South. My parents made sure I learned the old school ways. They made sure I learned the most basic of principles of "culture" and "civilization" (and I don't mean art here people).

As I said, math alludes me (which frustrates me more than I can express with mere words) while the written word sings to me. Once upon a time calculus made sense to me...not so much anymore!

Man, I wish that someone had taught me the skill of using a slide rule. My grandmother use to plot curves for Lockheed "back in the day." She laughs at me when I use my pc to do "simple" math. LOL! Of course, she calls me to explain legal stuff to her.

Schools today are more concerned with generic test scores so that they can get federal funding. It is no longer about teaching. Like so many things, it has become "how can I milk the system" and the "people" have been forgotten in the process. Heck, there are even school districts in TX where it is "against the rules" to give a student anything less than a 70 on the report card! The rich stay richer, the rest suffer. It's about control...it always has been! Control is nothing more than a vehicle for self-preservation...the only true human instinct (the rest are taught behavioral patterns...but that's a different discussion also. )

For the most part, it appears to me, that the order of the day is to allow people to afford their fast food, Wii's, cable television, and A/C. Happy people are easier to control. Until the pain of our reality become greater than the fear of fighting for change things will simply remain status quo. Parents teach their children that this is proper (as was posted, giving them what they want so as to gain a moment of peace). These children grow up to teach their children the same thing. I blame the post-WW2 politicians for this btw.

 

[5-90]

...

Mike - please answer "out-of-line" rather than "in-line" as you did - makes it easier to respond point-by-point... Let's see if I can get to them all...

1) I agree with you here. Doesn't seem to be an awful lot of logic in the laws as written - and it may be because an awful lot of Congresscritters these days have J.D. degrees! That could give them a vested interest in continued obfuscation - much like the "planned obsolescence" you refer to later. The EPA definition you cited is farcical - it would have been better to have used the word "real" or "tangible" in place of "solid."

But, what the Hell do I know?

And yes, CFR is different from USC. USC (United States Code) is written by Congress, CFR is written by various regulatory agencies and not voted upon by Congress. And let's not forget the ability to pass law by fiat - by putting something in the Congressional Record and not having it voted upon, commented upon, or redacted in the space of 180 days, it now carries the force of Federal law. Great way to sneak something in, no?

2) The RKBA debate is mostly about the placement of a single comma. That, and the continual redefinition of the word "militia" (as I recall, "militia" is defined in 10USC as "able-bodied men between 18 and 40 not currently serving in the Armed Forces in any capacity. So, that can open up yet another debate - should women be allowed to own firearms? Should anyone of middle age or older? [Yes on both, as far as I'm concerned.])

"Imagine the appeals, dissents and remandments/If lawyers had written the Ten Commandments."

Can't say as I've seen Oblivion - perhaps I should. I'll put that on the list of things I need to see alongside Idiocracy (that and Demolition Man seem to be the direction we're heading. May I also suggest you read Smoke Jumpers by Paul Freeman, if you can find a copy?)

3) I've not read DeLorean's bio (as I recall, you did get the title correct,) but I do need to look for a copy. "Planned obsolescence," indeed! That's a large part of what took AMC down - their tendency to overbuilt (according to The Standard Catalog of Jeep, the MJ was Dx'd due to flagging sales. I honestly think that the MJ was Dx'd because it could do everything the Dakota could do, most of what the D/W-150 could do, and do it better and for a longer time. Note that AMC's last engine design outlasted the company itself by twenty years - if we don't consider that elements of AMC do still exist as AM General...)

Then again, how much of "planned obsolescence" isn't trying so much to avoid a recession/depression as it could have been to continue the profit-making that assorted corporate executives have come to believe (wrongly) they were entitled to? Look at the recent meltdown on Wall Street - they got greedy, they stayed greedy, and things started falling apart once they economy couldn't sustain their greed.

Execs are as much a part of the problem as anything else. Where my wife works (Cadence Design Systems,) they recently terminated their CEO for cause - and still paid him two years' severance pay (something like $26M.) Hah? If you've been term'd for cause, I thought all you got out of the deal was your last pay up to that point and "Don't let the door hit you in your arse on the way out!"

That's leaving aside one other point - as far as I'm concerned, POTUS has the most difficult job in the nation (whoever he may be at the time.) POTUS makes something like $450K per annum - sounds like a decent salary cap for the rest of the country to me. Who the Hell needs umpty million dollars a year? Ya can't take it with ya; and if you're going to judge someone by what they've got in a bank account, I think you need to find a new yardstick!

 

[Ecomike]

It truly is the hypocracy that amazing. As I said, I'm guilty of this...when my car was hit I ran straight to the industry that I hold such disdain for to rectify the situation. I rationalize it to myself by saying that I am just working within the system that is in place until it is changed. I am now part of the problem rather than the solution as a result.

Just for the record here, If it weren't for a state law that allows car insurance companies to legally pick my pocket just for the right to drive my car on a road that I pay the taxes for, I would just pay the damages to my vehicle myself, if the other party claimed it was not their fault, or they could not afford to pay for damages that were their fault, but that is not the case here. I am required by Texas law to pay a car insurance company the going ransom, and then I am expected to sit back and let the insurance company say their is nothing they can do, fix it yourself as we don't think you can prove our customer ran into you, or I am expected to waist more money paying a lawyer to finishing picking my pocket.

 

[Ecomike]

"The first, third, and fifth weekend of the month with the weekend beginning at 6:00PM on Friday" makes sense to me - but I can see how people would get tripped up.

I think I have some insite into this example. The problem is that most people were never taught how to convert english words into a math equation. Therefore, they can not calculate the result.

What little exposure I had to word math problems was a joke. I could not do them until I bought an algebra book that laid it out, in college. Now I can work them, or write them. The problem was no one ever gave the definitions, such as "is" means "=", and "=" means "is"!

 

[5-90]

Just for the record here, If it weren't for a state law that allows car insurance companies to legally pick my pocket just for the right to drive my car on a road that I pay the taxes for, I would just pay the damages to my vehicle myself, if the other party claimed it was not their fault, or they could not afford to pay for damages that were their fault, but that is not the case here. I am required by Texas law to pay a car insurance company the going ransom, and then I am expected to sit back and let the insurance company say their is nothing they can do, fix it yourself as we don't think you can prove our customer ran into you, or I am expected to waist more money paying a lawyer to finishing picking my pocket.

I wonder what would happen if a class-action suit were brought against indemnity carriers under the RICO statutes. Moreover, who should we sue - the carriers, or the government that forces us to deal with them?

Yes, forces. You can't get much done on public transit, so the ability to move about freely has become a must. Money that should get used on transporation/transit infrastructure gets pissed away on pork projects, funding lobbyists, and otherwise wasted.

I keep hearing people countering rising fuel costs with, "Well, they pay that much per litre in Europe!" Two flaws there:

1) This ain't Europe. Much of Europe is at least partially socialist.
2) Money earmarked for transportation/transit infrastructure? At least most of it really does go into transportation/transit projects! You can probably get from England to Germany on various public transportation systems in a relatively efficient manner - and probably starting to extend into Eastern Europe as well.

Yeah, you can take Greyhound or Amtrak coast-to-coast here, but it takes bloody forever (I've done the Greyhound bit!) and the schedules leave a good deal to be desired.

In-county transit systems? Vary heavily from county to county, and the first thing management cuts when you hear of funding dropping for them is routes and schedules (why not cut management? They don't do anything. If you cut busses on the road, ridership is going to go down, and so is farebox revenue. Why is this such a surprise for these people?)

What amazes me is not that there are so many people making things difficult for us, but that we are required to pay them for the privilege!

Flipside - I think it was South Africa that had a model I liked. There was a small surcharge (something like 1/10 Rand) on each litre of motor fuel. This was put into liability/indemnity coverage - if it's required by law, it gets paid for by law. The minimum coverage was provided already - although you did have the option of purchasing additional coverage at your own expense, if you thought it necessary.

The other thing I like about that? Everyone was on a level playing field. We moved just far enough to change Zip codes a few years back (literally about a mile and a half,) and took a 20% spike in automobile coverage! I'm still trying to figure out why.

 

[MischiefMan]

Oh, I wasn't addressing my comments regarding insurance and being responsible for your own damages to anyone specific at all Economike. If it weren't for insurance, I couldn't afford to have the Porsche fixed after that drunk lady hit it. Not being able to afford to fix it means I have no place having it on the road as far as I'm concerned.

I know that I jokingly make comments about the law being illogical, but it really is logical (for the most part!). When the body of the law is taken as a whole it actually makes sense and it is understandable why certain things are the way that they are. When you look at specific laws, well, they don't make so much sense.

Errr...a salary cap? That concept flies in the face of capitalism. While I deplore big business, blaming the corporations for our economic woes is not wholly correct either. It is our entitled, instant gratification, lazy, complacent society that is the root of the evil. We have sat back and allowed the corporations to become what they are today. We have watched, and done nothing, as our government has ceased to function as designed and allowed big business to dictate. The very things that lead us to the revolt that formed this country are occuring now. It is truly amazing (and sad) to watch.

 

[5-90]

Errr...a salary cap? That concept flies in the face of capitalism. While I deplore big business, blaming the corporations for our economic woes is not wholly correct either. It is our entitled, instant gratification, lazy, complacent society that is the root of the evil. We have sat back and allowed the corporations to become what they are today. We have watched, and done nothing, as our government has ceased to function as designed and allowed big business to dictate. The very things that lead us to the revolt that formed this country are occuring now. It is truly amazing (and sad) to watch.

Perhaps - but it's also the "expected" high salaries and the avarice that is secondary to that that has driven the prices of so much up. After all, who pays those salaries? Eventually, us.

Look at what's happened to the cost of sporting tix of late - I can remember going to a baseball game for about ten bucks a head, and not having to take out a second mortgage to get munches while you're there.

Movies? I remember Saturday matinees going for fifty cents to a buck - and these were recent pix, not third- and fifth-run movies no-one had heard of.

The price of vehicles has gotten out of hand - partly because execs think they're worth so much (difference of opinion there...) and partly because UAW has convinced themselves they're worth a large wage hike every year (I'm not so sure about that, either...)

Bear in mind one thing - a "corporation" has picked up the legal definition of a sociopathic fictional entity whose sole responsibility is to its shareholders. That's it. That's all well and good - but everytime some damned exec votes himself a pay hike, or the unions negotiate one for their membership, that money has to come from somewhere - and the corporation still has to show a profit for their shareholders (because that's the only thing they're legally responsible for.)

And, once again, we're footing the bill. It honestly wouldn't be so bad, if the money we made kept pace with the money we have to lay out - but it does not.

 

[MischiefMan]

Simple solution is to stop funding these corporations. If you disapprove of how they are spending the money you give them by using their products, goods, services, etc. don't fund them. If enough people stop funding them they won't have the money to pay out to the top execs. Really, it's a self correcting problem.

I'm not VERY confused by both Economike and 5-90. Both have "complained" about the rules, yet both have advocated for giving more control to the government. Which is it guys?

 

[5-90]

The raison d'etre of government is the "external imposition of social order." "Social order" can take many forms, but it is usually concerned with the minimum body of law necessary both to govern interpersonal relations (malum in se, vice malum prohibitum. I've gone into detail on that distinction here before, so I shan't do so again unless requested...) and to keep various "fictional entities" (corporations, organisations, and even the government itself) in check. "Fictional" meaning that they only have existence due to law, vice "real persons" like you and I.

I would have no trouble with government under these conditions. Extend it to allow for the protection of the body politic against threats from without (viz. maintenance of the Armed Forces,) and allow the body politic the means (and choice!) to protect itself against threats from within (self-defence against crimes against the person et al.)

Frankly, as a society, we're not adult enough to function without a government. However, we could function with only a minimal government (under the stipulations above,) if we'd stop regressing into social childhood. The United States Government, as originally conceived and executed, is about where we should be. However, we've spend the last fifty or sixty years regressing rapidly into senescence ("second childhood.") Societally, we're going senile, and if the process isn't reversed we're going to fall.

I lay blame for this equally with the body politic as a whole (yes, including me. I've been doing my level damndest to educate people and get them to think for themselves, but I can't - legally - force them to!) and our "elected masters", who are no longer convinced of the idea that they work for us, and not the other way about. As has been said before, I think the system started to go downhill rapidly once "politician" became a career choice. I don't approve of anyone being able to spend 20-30 years in politics, simply because sooner or later they'll be corrupted by the power. And, retirement should not be provided for any politician! I honestly think they're all paid too much anyhow in the first place...

We bandy about the idea of imposing "term limits" - I honestly think that paying them a stipend and eliminating retirement wholesale would do a good deal more than would the imposition of term limits, y'ask me.

I am not a fan of government regulation - I am a libertarian at heart. Any measure that increases personal liberty and/or decreases government power is OK with me - provided it is not a measure that allows for people to go about hurting each other unjustifiably (self-defense is just ducky. I'm not sure how I'd go about defining "justifiable assault" - but I run across people all the damned time that could use a good beating to get their minds right...)

Yes, the government should be able to provide for those of us who are no longer able to earn a living (for reasons of disability, infirmity, or simple old age) akin to the ideas laid out by Thomas Paine in his Common Sense, but it needs to be something better than the legitimised Ponzi scheme we all call "Social Security" (it may be "social," but it is hardly "secure" or "security." Sowwies.) The time to "fix" it would have been circa 1965-1970 - it is now at the point where it should be scrapped and rewritten wholesale. Between the postwar Baby Boom (kids born 1945-1965) and the utter lack of any sort of "career path" anymore (except in government civil service, public safety, or military service,) and the decline of an effective single-income family, we're in trouble. I feel as though it's going to get worse before it gets better.

Government regulation and laws aren't helping society much - if they are, why aren't the "War on Drugs" (WoD) and "War on Gangs" (WoG) making any headway? All they've done is served to militarise the police and incarcerate a great many more people than ever before - but gangs are still around, and we still have a drug "problem." I honestly don't think it's a problem - and we could solve a good deal of it with decriminalisation. Control it in much the same sense that alcohol is controlled - provide for no "poisonous cuts," it would all but eliminate associated street crime (since prices could drop mightily,) quality would be controlled and predictable, and you'd only get hung out if you were doing something under the influence of drugs that would you get in trouble if you were doing it while drunk (operating motor vehicles, operating machinery, working, ...) Drug use is, at its core, a "consensual crime" - and it would be all but victimless if it were handled properly. Just like drinking - personal moderation would be the key. Prohibition of alcohol didn't work - cf: "The Noble Experiment". Why do we think prohibition of dope will fare any better? It hasn't yet - and it's been malum prohibitum for much longer than booze was.

Likewise prostitution - why is prostitution illegal? No reason for it to be. I've been to countries where prostitution was legal (or at least looked away from, as opposed to actively prosecuted and persecuted,) and the girls were much happier, healthier, cleaner, and overall more appealing (did I partake? Nope - never felt the need to. But, I tend to keep an eye on just about everything, and can usually guess properly as to what is going on.) Simple prostitution is a victimless crime - legitimise it, and you'll end up with girls who are going to seek regular checkups and medical care, they'll be happier (no risk of "getting busted,") and win-win all around.

Yes, I am forced to admit, some government regulation is necessary - we're just not grownup enough to function without it! But, I will state for the record that, in my estimate, fully one-third of the laws we now have on the books aren't strictly necessary, and I'd even go further and state - again, for the record - that probably one-tenth of the laws we're saddled with cause more trouble than they're meant to solve.

And, if this regulation is reduced, then enforcement can be reduced (or redirected to more pressing issues.) And, that would allow for a reduction in taxation - which would have a beneficial effect upon the economy (it's been shown that when the tax bite is increased, the effective value of the moneatary units is reduced, simply because the "productive" aspect of it is reduced. It's not enough to 'circulate money' - it has to be circulated into productive means, or used to enhance tangible production, viz. manual trades and purchasable goods like food, clothing, shelter, transportation, &c. I have more respect for the output of a physician than that of an attorney - most attorney produce what should be used as kindling and bog paper, while a physician produces a tangible physical product - increase in and/or maintenance of health.)

 

[Ecomike]

I'm not VERY confused by both Economike and 5-90. Both have "complained" about the rules, yet both have advocated for giving more control to the government. Which is it guys?

I think you have miss read us both, or least me. Governments already have as much control or power as they chose to try and exercise at any one time (for the most part anyway), note that I said try.

It's the rules, and regulations we want changed. In general, we want them changed to favor of individual rights over "corporate rights to profit" at the expense of most law abiding individuals. In some cases this may mean attempting to reduce government control over us, and increasing it over corporations and thus some of the confusion. In the last 30 years individuals have had many of their rights stripped from them in favor of large corporations, and government desires. The needs (no wait! The wants!) of the few (the ultra rich, ultra powerful) have been deemed to be more important than the needs of the many, in the name of profits.

Let me say that again, the wants of the Few, have out weighted the needs of the many for far too long.

I tend to press for fixing the rules and regulations that seem unfair, wrong, immoral, out of step, or antiquainted, counter productive, assanine, etc. 5-90 and many others prefer the tack of just getting rid of most of the government agencies and thus gid ride of their rules and regulations, and their infringements on personal freedom.

Many times our gripes are the same, but our methods I think are different. Our suggested methods frequently get tangled with venting about some single issue.

 

[Ecomike]

Frankly, as a society, we're not adult enough to function without a government. However, we could function with only a minimal government (under the stipulations above,) if we'd stop regressing into social childhood. The United States Government, as originally conceived and executed, is about where we should be. However, we've spend the last fifty or sixty years regressing rapidly into senescence ("second childhood.") Societally, we're going senile, and if the process isn't reversed we're going to fall.

Just one thought to add to to yours. The rule of law starts with the need to stop cheaters from cheating others who try to be honest. Cheaters, being thieves bandits, rapists, murderers, and even polluters (thinking of serious hazardous waste, radioactive dumps...) , and so on. I don't see that as a childhood issue, but the need to try and stop cheats from cheating others (you cover this later below). Recently I put bankers, and major corporate CEOs into that batch of unregulated cheats that have gotten out of control at our expense, all in the name of freeing up capitalism but letting it run amok and slip shod over consumers with little real regulation.

Hell the current credit card agreements basically read that I the banker can do anything I damn well please, anytime I please, for any reason I please, and that I screw you over any way I please, on top, on bottom, dogie style, or any style, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it, while I rape loot and plunder you, your wife, first born, your retirement, your house, et al. What kind of regulation is it that allows them to screw us, but not the other way around, al in the name of free enterprise?

Why do individuals have to live by hoards of regulations, but not large corporations and CEOs who can commit huge frauds and ponzie schemes and get away with them in the name of free enterprise.

We have been the bait and fodder in the shark pond for far too long now.

Government regulation and laws aren't helping society much - if they are, why aren't the "War on Drugs" (WoD) and "War on Gangs" (WoG) making any headway? All they've done is served to militarise the police and incarcerate a great many more people than ever before - but gangs are still around, and we still have a drug "problem." I honestly don't think it's a problem - and we could solve a good deal of it with decriminalisation. Control it in much the same sense that alcohol is controlled - provide for no "poisonous cuts," it would all but eliminate associated street crime (since prices could drop mightily,) quality would be controlled and predictable, and you'd only get hung out if you were doing something under the influence of drugs that would you get in trouble if you were doing it while drunk (operating motor vehicles, operating machinery, working, ...) Drug use is, at its core, a "consensual crime" - and it would be all but victimless if it were handled properly. Just like drinking - personal moderation would be the key. Prohibition of alcohol didn't work - cf: "The Noble Experiment". Why do we think prohibition of dope will fare any better? It hasn't yet - and it's been malum prohibitum for much longer than booze was.

Likewise prostitution - why is prostitution illegal? No reason for it to be. I've been to countries where prostitution was legal (or at least looked away from, as opposed to actively prosecuted and persecuted,) and the girls were much happier, healthier, cleaner, and overall more appealing (did I partake? Nope - never felt the need to. But, I tend to keep an eye on just about everything, and can usually guess properly as to what is going on.) Simple prostitution is a victimless crime - legitimise it, and you'll end up with girls who are going to seek regular checkups and medical care, they'll be happier (no risk of "getting busted,") and win-win all around.

Yes, I am forced to admit, some government regulation is necessary - we're just not grownup enough to function without it! But, I will state for the record that, in my estimate, fully one-third of the laws we now have on the books aren't strictly necessary, and I'd even go further and state - again, for the record - that probably one-tenth of the laws we're saddled with cause more trouble than they're meant to solve.

And, if this regulation is reduced, then enforcement can be reduced (or redirected to more pressing issues.) And, that would allow for a reduction in taxation - which would have a beneficial effect upon the economy (it's been shown that when the tax bite is increased, the effective value of the moneatary units is reduced, simply because the "productive" aspect of it is reduced. It's not enough to 'circulate money' - it has to be circulated into productive means, or used to enhance tangible production, viz. manual trades and purchasable goods like food, clothing, shelter, transportation, &c. I have more respect for the output of a physician than that of an attorney - most attorney produce what should be used as kindling and bog paper, while a physician produces a tangible physical product - increase in and/or maintenance of health.)

Well said!!!! I agree totally!

 

[Ecomike]

I remember .29 cent a gallon gas too! And $100/month apartment rent!

Perhaps - but it's also the "expected" high salaries and the avarice that is secondary to that that has driven the prices of so much up. After all, who pays those salaries? Eventually, us.

Look at what's happened to the cost of sporting tix of late - I can remember going to a baseball game for about ten bucks a head, and not having to take out a second mortgage to get munches while you're there.

Movies? I remember Saturday matinees going for fifty cents to a buck - and these were recent pix, not third- and fifth-run movies no-one had heard of.

The price of vehicles has gotten out of hand - partly because execs think they're worth so much (difference of opinion there...) and partly because UAW has convinced themselves they're worth a large wage hike every year (I'm not so sure about that, either...)

Bear in mind one thing - a "corporation" has picked up the legal definition of a sociopathic fictional entity whose sole responsibility is to its shareholders. That's it. That's all well and good - but everytime some damned exec votes himself a pay hike, or the unions negotiate one for their membership, that money has to come from somewhere - and the corporation still has to show a profit for their shareholders (because that's the only thing they're legally responsible for.)

And, once again, we're footing the bill. It honestly wouldn't be so bad, if the money we made kept pace with the money we have to lay out - but it does not.

 

[5-90]

I remember .29 cent a gallon gas too! And $100/month apartment rent!

Yeah, and yer old!:jester: (Couldn't help myself...)

I can remember $0.69.9 gasoline for your car, and 80-octane for 0.29.9 for your tractor (and just how the Hell do you administrate nine-tenths of a cent, anyhow? Seems like just another screw job to me...)

And "child" vice "grownup" isn't intended as a matter of age, but that of attitute. We're still "children" in a moral sense - as a people, we haven't managed to cultivate a sense of moral responsibility yet. We still need to learn that treating other people fairly actually is in our best interests (again - as a people. There are quite a few individuals who seem to have it sorted, but they aren't in the majority. Yet.) And, unfortunately, the "moral children" end up being in positions of authority - where they write the rules, or influence how they are written, or have themselves in positions where they can take advantage of the disparity between them and the rest of us.

One thing I can say with certainty - the Second American Revolution will be economic. And, I'm honestly surprised that we haven't reached a boiling point already yet, but I feel that we're getting closer...