DSeid
10-20-2005, 12:47 PM
Whilst looking for something else, I fond these two bits on a Libertarian Party page (http://www.lp.org/lpnews/article_18.shtml) and wondered about the libertarian stance once again. First:"If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn" -- so goes the old saw.
Now, George Pataki may actually be willing to sell you that span. Pataki ... has introduced a proposal that may see many of the state's roads, bridges and highways and byways wind up in private hands.
Newsday reported Thursday private firms could soon begin "buying" state transportation venues, which would provide much-needed cash for state coffers. To recoup their investment, the private firms would charge tolls for the use of the roads and bridges with an eye towards making a profit.
Private businesses could begin charging tolls and fees at tunnels, bridges or other roadways where they currently exist or where they make improvements, says the paper.
[T]he idea is getting serious consideration. To get it approved, however, state law regarding privatization of state assets would have to be changed.So are they pleased with this or not? Should roads, bridges, and other parts of "the commons" be private property and if they are, are all the rights of private property inherent in such ownership?
The other item of interest on that page was this:In Can Tort Reform and Federalism Coexist?, Cato Institute senior fellow Robert A. Levy and Michael I. Krauss, professor of law at George Mason University, write, "Critics of federal tort reform have usually come from the political left and its allies among the trial lawyers, who favor a state-based system that can be exploited to redistribute income from deep-pocketed corporations to deserving individuals."
Levy and Krauss, however, "offer a totally different criticism -- constitutional in origin -- that embraces the need for reform but reaffirms this principle: The existence of a problem, however serious, does not justify federal remedies outside the scope of Congress' enumerated powers."
They argue that "substantive federal reforms are neither necessary nor proper. If states persist in imposing unjust rules on out-of-state defendants, federal procedural remedies are available."
-- Wyatt DuBois, editor Cato Daily Dispatch January 25, 2005Now the LP and Cato are currently very quiet about legislation up to shield gun manufactrers, guns distributers, and the fast food industry from any future product related lawsuits, in advance of any knowledge of the merits of the particular case. But one would think they'd be vocal against them if they were consistent. Personally, I think that the courts are indeed an inefficient source of redress that sometimes impose unfair and disproprtionate outcomes based on emotional appeals. Yet giving a prejudged pass to entire industries without knowing the merits of any future particular case is an excessive response that imposes greatly upon individual rights in order to guard whole industries against possible future bad calls by the courts. OTOH, providing a narrow set of guidelines upon the courts, caps on non-economic damages say, and setting up alternative systems of arbitration, as has been proposed for medmal, is a lesser intervention that may be justified by a greater good achieved (if one believes as I do that such would be the result). What I'm asking here for is explanations of the Libertarian position here, not a defense of lawyers and a debate of the utility of unfettered lawsuits.
Now, George Pataki may actually be willing to sell you that span. Pataki ... has introduced a proposal that may see many of the state's roads, bridges and highways and byways wind up in private hands.
Newsday reported Thursday private firms could soon begin "buying" state transportation venues, which would provide much-needed cash for state coffers. To recoup their investment, the private firms would charge tolls for the use of the roads and bridges with an eye towards making a profit.
Private businesses could begin charging tolls and fees at tunnels, bridges or other roadways where they currently exist or where they make improvements, says the paper.
[T]he idea is getting serious consideration. To get it approved, however, state law regarding privatization of state assets would have to be changed.So are they pleased with this or not? Should roads, bridges, and other parts of "the commons" be private property and if they are, are all the rights of private property inherent in such ownership?
The other item of interest on that page was this:In Can Tort Reform and Federalism Coexist?, Cato Institute senior fellow Robert A. Levy and Michael I. Krauss, professor of law at George Mason University, write, "Critics of federal tort reform have usually come from the political left and its allies among the trial lawyers, who favor a state-based system that can be exploited to redistribute income from deep-pocketed corporations to deserving individuals."
Levy and Krauss, however, "offer a totally different criticism -- constitutional in origin -- that embraces the need for reform but reaffirms this principle: The existence of a problem, however serious, does not justify federal remedies outside the scope of Congress' enumerated powers."
They argue that "substantive federal reforms are neither necessary nor proper. If states persist in imposing unjust rules on out-of-state defendants, federal procedural remedies are available."
-- Wyatt DuBois, editor Cato Daily Dispatch January 25, 2005Now the LP and Cato are currently very quiet about legislation up to shield gun manufactrers, guns distributers, and the fast food industry from any future product related lawsuits, in advance of any knowledge of the merits of the particular case. But one would think they'd be vocal against them if they were consistent. Personally, I think that the courts are indeed an inefficient source of redress that sometimes impose unfair and disproprtionate outcomes based on emotional appeals. Yet giving a prejudged pass to entire industries without knowing the merits of any future particular case is an excessive response that imposes greatly upon individual rights in order to guard whole industries against possible future bad calls by the courts. OTOH, providing a narrow set of guidelines upon the courts, caps on non-economic damages say, and setting up alternative systems of arbitration, as has been proposed for medmal, is a lesser intervention that may be justified by a greater good achieved (if one believes as I do that such would be the result). What I'm asking here for is explanations of the Libertarian position here, not a defense of lawyers and a debate of the utility of unfettered lawsuits.