[AClay47]

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." - Karl Marx

John Kerry talks about a "backdoor draft." No, there isn't a military draft, but by calling reservists for activie duty, the Administration, he argues, is engaged in a backdoor draft. It is a novel idea, which can be applied towards fundamental issues, such as taxation.

Taxation, as exercised today, is redistribution of wealth. Not all tax revenue is applied towards essential government functions, such as National Defense and highway programs. Generous portions are applied instead towards entitlement programs like social security, which is the second largest expenditure of the Federal Government. Arguably, it is backdoor communism. Karl Marx, the father of communism recognized long ago that, "Taxes are the source of life for the bureaucracy, the army and the court, in short, for the whole apparatus of the executive power. Strong government and heavy taxes are identical." Taxes on property, income, gasoline, sales, inheritance, and almost every transaction in life have made our government quite strong. Our country seems to be following the course of Marxism.

Maybe, it is too late for our democratic republic? Listen to today's political disourse. Each major political party is afraid to lose votes to those who suckle from the public teat. Privatization of entitlement programs is one way to cast off the shackles of Marxism, but admitting it is the kiss of death to political campaigns. Maybe there is no way back from today's backdoor communism? Marx seemed to think so. He also wrote, "Democracy is the road to socialism." Thomas Jefferson disagreed, but he recognized that, "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." The author of Jeffersonian Democracy elaborated elsewhere that, "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have .... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

It's time to search for answers.

 

[Sangrun Hunter]

I believe we are seeing the turning point with this election.

If Bush is elected even with his flaws we are free froma major government take overe.

If Kerry gets in we see a continuation of this collectivist BS that has been going on since FDR. The research I did earlier this year and reading up about who was Kerry leads me to one conclusion. He is a collectivist if not a communist and so was his father who worked in the state department with Alger Hiss.

He is against guns

He wants a global test

He wanst higher taxes

He does not want to privatize SS

He's not a friend of the military

He sold our VN POW's so his cousin could get lucrative contracts with VN.

I think the collectivist in thise country see him as the best chance to get one of their own in as this country seems to be swinging back the middle and away from liberalism.


On the other side of the coin the Repubs have to offer many collective style programs in order to stay afloat and keep themesleves alive. This is unfortunate because teh have nots have been duped intgo believing anyone who is anyuthing is out to get them. It's not a good scenario as it's hard to get these lowlife welfare types off the street and working or even educated which is free. So, the government under a Repub doesn't get any smaller either, but compared to liberals the gove seem friendlier to the people since guys in black are popping into our gun owning neighbors houses getting them for trumped up charges over the last 4 years.

 

[aviator]

Not so fast grasshoper......

In order for Socialism to succede there has to be an end to private enterprise, something that will never happen here. True, taxes are a "redestribution of wealth", however, it is the cost of living in a free democracy. Just within the last couple of years, the Cuban government realized it needed taxes if it wanted to survive, even though private enterprise in the island is almost non-existent, taxes are being collected from those souls that dare do anything on their own, be it an artist who sells pictures on a roadside or a "private" caffeteria that caters to passing tourists. Taxes have been a way of life since Roman times and it's a proven source of income for government, regardless of political inclination.

But of course, Marx will apply any and all things to Communism, just to get his point across.

 

[Oldgunner]

There are a few in our government that I see as backdoor communists and some that I see as outright communists. One of the later is John Kerry; another is Barac Obama who?s running for U.S. Senate here in Illinois. A long time ago when Mr. Obama first came on the scene I took the time to look him up on the Internet to see what he?s about. I read about how he stands on many different subjects and came to the conclusion he?s a communist and believed that anyone with half a brain will see this and never vote for him. Well just like Bill Clinton who couldn?t get even one home state newspaper to back him, this man will win the election. Some say he?ll be Hillary?s VP in 2008 and that seems just about right because they deserve each other. The thing is we don?t deserve them. Gun owners have said for years that when our guns are taken away we?ll be vulnerable to a Dictatorship or worse. Well here it comes, take one woman that?s power hungry and a Communist as VP and then mix in the antigun laws that they?ll pass and you?ve got a Dictatorship in the making. One big reason Mr. Obama will win is the influence of Mayor Daley and our Governor Rod Blogovich, Both of whom are insanely antigun and push for complete outlawing of any guns. The people in this state are so brain washed that Alan Keyes (who?s running against Obama) lost the election as soon as he said he believes in the 2nd Amendment and the right to own and carry a gun. Yah I heard a death knell when I heard him say that line. In Illinois the belief in the RKBA will beat you every time, its just not allowed in the land of the Democrats. Seems I?m using Communist and Democrat interchangeably, Gee I wonder why? Maybe I should just say "Anti-American" instead?

 

[D.B.Cooper]

I'll take backdoor Communism over backdoor Fundamentalist American Talibanism anyday.
I think these days our American Taliban (formerly known as Puritans) types are calling the Theocracy they envision "Faith Based," but either way, The goals are the same, tell you what to beleive, how to live, and anything else is traitorous heresy.

 

[aviator]

D.B., it's been that way since the begining of written history, in every society and every religion we have records of powerful people telling other how to do things and what to believe in. It's called control over the populace, without it there would be no order. It is up to the people to decide which controls are good or bad, that's a democracy, otherwise you have a totalitarian form of government.

 

[Sangrun Hunter]

Aviator,

When you talk about private enetrprise not going away one has to wonder about all the lawsuits and government regulations sapping companies of capital.

Before I go further let me say I'm not in favor of companies runnming rampant doing whatever. It's the huge lawsuits that are out of control to the point of people getting a settlement for having a crack baby. Don't laugh I jsut talked to an OB-GYN that knew of a woman who was a crackhead and she got a huge amount of money because her baby had problems. Go figure, but right now it's only an ersosion, but then again many small buisnesses have trouble with regulations.

DB,

If there was such a theoracy ruling us then why is Brittany Spears still running around in skin tight outfits simulating sex on stage with her dancers? Not to mention all the other Hollywood types.

We are far from a purtan society and I don't think it will change anytime soon. 76% of those polled believed in faith and religion of some kind. If the majority really wanted to clamp down it wouldn't take much.

I wouldn't say we're headed to theocracy of communism, but I would say collectivism is and has been on the gain since the 1930's and FDR.

Government is messy and know one knows which way the public or outside influences will push.

 

[AClay47]

DB, that's interesting. I was thinking more about the government controlling our property and money, the fruits of our labor.

Still, I agree we don't want a government which not only controls our property, but our minds as well. I don't think communist country's allow religion, whereas a free country should allow religious expression by all, however aggravating it may be to some. The Taliban did not afford religious freedom, either, and their government actually punished citizens for not properly abiding by religious dictates. I'm not very familiar with Puritans, but they burned people at the stake for witchcraft, so I agree we don't want a government controlled by religious leaders. Are you suggesting we have a backdoor "theocracy?"

 

[Custer]

I think we have a society greatly based upon the 60's philosophy of "if it feels good, do it". The pogeny of that want to do whatever they want, whenever they want.

Then, where there is a price to be paid for that behavior, they want someone else to pick up the tab.

 

[AClay47]

Cephus, the McDonald's coffee case is an excellent topic for discussion about our Product Liability laws. On one hand, people don't want to be hurt by dangerous products, such as a poorly designed Ford Pinto gas tank, or a 142 degree cup of coffee, but then they complain when someone else is injured by the product and receives compensation, which boosts prices of the product.

In past days, caveat emptor (Let the buyer beware.) was the law of the land. The question you suggest is whether to abandon modern Product Liability laws and return to laws which place responsibility on customers to determine if the product they buy is fit for the purpose intended. I think it is a good question. The bottom line is it is a policy issue.

Custer, I agree with you. I think the phrase is "selfish hedonism?"

 

[Custer]

I think I would dump a lot of the current precedent using strict liability and at least require negligence.

And, what good are the warning labels for a defense in a failure to warn cause of action?

 

[AClay47]

Strict liability is rarely used. It only applies to extraordinarily dangerous situations.

Product liability, which affords compensation for damages from a product that is dangerous when used as intended, has no requirement of negligence by the manufacturer. If product liability were limited to negligence actions, then seller/manufacturers would have a built-in defense of "assumption of risk." That would allow negligent defendants to escape liability.

However, I have wondered whether there should be defenses of contributory negligence, or at least comparitive negligence. In the McDonald's coffee case, it could be argued that the lady would not have been burned had she not tried to open the cup while her son was diving out of a parking lot. Even though the coffee was hot enough to cause third degree burns in less than 3 seconds of exposure, she would not have been burned if she hadn't spilled the coffee. What motivated the jury in that case was McDonalds was aware of many other customers who had suffered serious burns from the coffee, but chose not reduce the temperature of their take-out coffee. How many auto manufacturers knew about exploding gas tanks, but declined to make them better?

I think Product Liability needs to be reconsidered. Maybe our current law is best, but I'm not convinced.

 

[aviator]

From the non-legal point of view, I have to admit that product liability reform law has allowed many businesses to manufacture things thay had long ago stopped manufacturing. Cessna Aviation, for instance is back in operation after a 20 year hiatus because of product liability law suits. It is, however a double edge sword.


Lawyers like the one on the Mc. Donalds case are the ones I have a problem with,

 

[aviator]

But Cephus, judges do make a decision, however, lawyers have to make money too. (I know of 3 lawyers on this board who will beat me up now)

 

[AClay47]

Well, let's talk lawyers, then. They don't make the law. They don't decide the facts. The best lawyers present evidence in a professional manner and explain their cases to the jury. Juries are not often swayed by theatrics.

The Plaintiff's lawyers in the McDonald's case offered to settle the claim for far less than the jury award. So, what happened? There are other people not mentioned. McDonalds wanted to defend the suit. The evaluated their liability exposure and felt a jury would have little sympathy for the Plaintiff and award nominal damages, if at all. Then, there were other attorneys - defense attorneys. Those guys are paid big, big bucks. I suggest you drive around town and just look up homes of insurance lawyers. Compare them to other attorney's homes. They probably told McDonald's they could sway the jury away form the Plaintiff, while making $250/billable hour, plus expenses.

The evidence was the coffee was hotter than ordinarily served. McDonalds felt its profits would increase by providing coffee which would remain hot for a longer period of time, so they heated it beyond 140 degrees. I forget the exact temperature. They knew it caused severe burns to many customers. It had simply paid off previous claims, instead of altering its practice. After listening to its high priced defense attorneys, McDonalds decided to make a stand against any further burned customers. The coffee it served was not just hot, it was so hot it would burn away all three layers of a person's skin in 3 seconds. I doubt anyone expects that a coffee spill would result in such damage. Frankly, I thought it was a bad decision when I first heard it reported over the national media, but when I became familiar with what happened, I believe the jury made a proper decision under the facts and law. I particularlyl thought their award of puntive damages, which amounted to one day of coffee sales for McDonalds, was appropriate. Just my opinion. The Judge reduced the punitive damage award dramatically, which was probably an error.

Still, I think our Product Liability laws should be revisited.

 

[AClay47]

BS if you can't take responsiblity for your own actions and have to blame someone else then this must be AMERICA.

Cephus, well said. You are not alone with your sentiments. Product Liability law is frustrating... but, shouldn't manufacturers take some responsibility for the products they sell which are not safe when used as anticipated? Shouldn't Ford be responsible for damages caused by a defective gas tank, or should market demands be used instead? Arguably, if enough Ford customers burn up in minor rear-enders, people will quit buying Fords, forcing the manufacturer to fix the problem. Shouldn't the widow of a Ford customer be afforded compensation for the death of her spouse, on whose income she and her children relied? What about those who were burned, maimed, and damaged because the gas tanks exploded? Should they be compensated?

On the other hand, doesn't the customer have some responsibility, too? That's the issue which I think needs revisiting. I'm not sure of the answer. Hopefully, it will become a policital issue, so we can have debate on it.

 

[aviator]

So there is product liability and people liability, when one fails, blame the other....yes Cephus, this is America.


Aclay, I do know trial lawyers and real estate lawyers and true, their lifestyles are quite different.

What we need is more decency and common sense in this country. About 20 years ago my wife slipped and fell at a Sears store, their own lawyers started calling us suggesting to go see a doctor on their tab, did we sue?...no, simply because I too am a business owner and believe in the Golder Rule. But I have been a juror at a case where a lady walked into a gas station, saw a gas spill and stepped right onto it claiming to have fallen. Why would anybody walk on spilled gas knowingly is beyond my immagination, the station owner settled just before trial. That is wrong.

But product liability as I said, is a double edge sword as Cephus indicated, if you are stupid enough to stick your finger in a working lawnmower and get it chopped off, who's fault is it?....If you are a lousy pilot and crash your airplane because of crosswind, who's fault is it, in the meantime companies most increase prices to compensate for possible lawsuits that will arise from the use of their products and we all pay more.

 

[AClay47]

Aviator, I agree about the case you mentioned. Slip-fall cases are not product liability issues, but are negligence cases. Unless they involve a business invitee, there is practically no way to recover for injuries, absent wilful or wanton misconduct. The standard of negligence is higher for businesses, because they invite the public and have a duty to be reasonably diligent about the conditions of their premises. There is also a theory that because the property owner benfefits from the invitation that he must exercise a reasonable standard of care, nothing more.

Whether the owner failed to exercise a reasonable care for his business property is an issue for the jury, not the lawyers. Most jurors feel as do you. Most attorneys will not handle a slip fall case, because they are unlikely to net a recovery beyond. If the facts of your case had been different, you might have a different opinion. For instance, if an elderly lady slipped, fell, and broke her hip, because the owner had failed to clean up a spill of an oily, but hard to see substance, then maybe you would have felt it just to afford her compensation for her injuries?

If you know any attorneys who made a fortune from a slip fall case, I want to know about it. He or she would be the snake-eyed lawyer of all time.

Traditionally, "contributory negligence" of a person would absolutely bar his or her recovery for damages caused by another's negligence. North Carolina follows that rule. Other jurisdictions argued it was unjust. Theoretically, someone who was 1% negligent could be barred from recovering anything, so most States abandoned the notion of "contributory negligence" and adopted "comparitive negligence," which apportioned damages by degree of contributory negligence. If someone was only 1% contributorily negligent, he or she could have a 99% recovery. That sounds fine in theory, but it has produced some awful results, particularly where another legal theory is involved, "vicarioua liability."

I believe there was a Florida case involving Disney World where Disney wound up paying nearly 100% of a jury verdict, although they were determined to be only 5% negligent. Why? because they were absolutely responsible for the 85% liability of their agent under the doctrine of respondeat superior. In practical terms, I believe "contributory negligence" is a far superior legal doctrine than "comparitive negligence." Juries are known for doing what they believe to be just.

 

[aviator]

If you know any attorneys who made a fortune from a slip fall case, I want to know about it. He or she would be the snake-eyed lawyer of all time.

.

They must be doing OK down here, they advertise all day long in TV and radio. By the way, I forgot to mention my wife's fall was because of a wet floor due to a leaky roof, not that it made any difference to us, we believe in making money the old fashioned way, not by taking people to court.
Now back to work, I have to write two contracts this afternoon.

 

[Custer]

Even the old fashioned slip and fall guys can do ok if they can churn enough cases.

Things have changed. A lot of the bottom feeders work those kind of cases, minor auto accidents, SS disability and workers comp.

They can do pretty well even though the dollars are small, the case load volume can be quite high. Lot's of referrals from unions & especially lucrative if they lead to the "plant closing" cases and you can tag along. A lot of these hacks also get a big hunk of the mass tort cases even if they never actually handle the case. Again, they tag along, holding claimant files, often people they never met, and share in the global settlements.

That is what made Peter Angelos rich and famous. He is now most well known for owning the Baltimore Orioles.

These are the modern slip and fall guys.