Tragedy of the commons
Good morning all,
I'm a philosopher, at least I'd like to think I am. One of the things that always intrigued me was the tragedy of the commons. It is the idea that if someone is owned by no one, it is abused by everyone. The best example is the ocean, for example the cod fisheries outside of Boston. No one owned the cod, and everyone fished (because when it's the commons, the best thing you can do is to use it faster than everyone else because no one owns it). This leads to the cod fishery being depleted and the whole fishing industry grinding to a halt.
In this incarnation, I want to talk about insurance and the litigious nature of our society. We have a culture of "something for nothing" and the idea that if you sue someone huge (like an insurance company, a school, the government, McDonalds) you aren't hurting anyone. You are getting something for nothing. But no one considers that these lawsuits are the death by a thousand cuts to everyone. When you sue someone like that, or commit insurance fraud, you make everyone's premium go up. This is why our cost of living keeps increasing. This is also why people with property are unwilling to let other people hunt or fish or be on it. They are nervous that people will sue them. Everyone's cost of living comes up because the insurance company has to insure extra because everyone might be sued for anything at all of the times.
We need to stop this. As a culture, we need to stop thinking that there is something for nothing. We need to behave as if all of those bigger companies and corporations aren't unlimited cash machines. We never hurt the corporations, we hurt each other. When that lady sued McDonalds for the hot coffee on her lap, she didn't hurt McDonalds. McDonalds just reduced cost somewhere else (maybe by not paying its employees or not providing them health insurance). She hurt others, not the corporation.
At any rate, happy Wednesday and I hope you are all healthy, well, and safe.
Sincerely,
~Mark
I'd suggest that you look more closely into the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit. For political reasons it was spun into a story about frivolous lawsuits when the facts tell a different story. Or at minimum the story is much more nuanced than the "irresponsible lady tries to rip off big corporation" narrative so often heard.
ReplyDeleteHi Divcoman, I will certainly do so. I would like a better example of a frivolous lawsuit - do you have any? I know of several but would like the best one for the rewrite. Thanks for your input and have a great day!
DeleteI have little doubt there are many examples of frivolous lawsuits. But I don't just just quibble with the example you picked. I'm skeptical about the whole argument that frivolous suits are common enough to be a plague on our nation and our economy. Corporations are enormously powerful and of course they are motivated by only one thing. None of them, despite all their public relations campaigns, do anything unless it helps their bottom line. Filing a lawsuit is often the only thing a person can do to get a corporation to "do the right thing." This is always true but it is never more true than when the government abandons its proper role as a regulator. And that is exactly what we've seen the past four years especially. So I don't characterize the folks bringing suits as people out to get something for nothing. Or at least that doesn't describe the bulk of them. And I think this general idea about frivolous lawsuits strangling our economy is largely corporate propaganda seeking to further strengthen the powerful and further weaken the masses. Take a look at McConnell's negotiating position over the last six months on the Covid response legislation. He wants to include a liability shield to make it difficult for the public to sue businesses on anything related to Covid. And this would make it harder for employees to sue their employers on Covid related issues. Would this prevent some frivolous lawsuits? I don't doubt it. But it will also immediately incentivize businesses (and schools and other public institutions) to worry a lot less about whether they are taking the necessary precautions to operate safely.
DeleteInteresting. I know that corporations are powerful, I know that people are scared to let others use their land. For instance, I would love to have a common farm on my 6 acres and have others keep small plots and tend them. I agree with you about McConnell - and I agree that the ability to file suit is important, just as unions are important to protect workers from corporations. I wonder if there are ways we can keep the frivolous ones at bay but still allow people to fight the corporations when needed.
DeleteYou know that Divcoman is Flaherty, right?
ReplyDeleteI didn't, but now I do LOL.
DeleteThe milk truck that Peggy and I drove across country in 1979/80 was called a Divco. I left Massachusetts in November 79 and drove to Houston and moved in with the Wades and got a job at a construction site. Peggy graduated from UMASS in June of 80 and flew down. We left for Dallas, Lubbock, Santa Fe, Grand Canyon on the 4th of July!, and then Monterey, Berkeley, and San Francisco. We lived in a friend's dining room in SF through September when we returned in the truck to Dallas via a few national parks and Disneyland. Fantastic trip!
DeleteThe truck was not only our vehicle but our living quarters for many months and it was our only vehicle for the first year in Dallas where we both got jobs and started a more normal life together. So years later in tribute to the memories of those two years I adopted the name Divcoman for various things on the web. And there's the story!
Well, that's a fabulous story and the envy of many van-lifers (I'm sure) and wannabe van lifers like myself. My closest analog is when I drove with the Wolvertons across the northern route to Seattle and then Portland. We car camped most of the time and had all sorts of epic adventures, and I would love to do it all again but the southern route this time and a van camper (4wd mercedes sprinter high top to be exact).
ReplyDelete