[FoRK] Challenge for Zee and Stephen

Zee Roe zero at rawbw.com
Mon Jun 30 10:01:25 PDT 2008



On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Jeff Bone wrote:

>
> On Jun 30, 2008, at 11:03 AM, Jeff Bone wrote:
>
> > Let's turn this around.
>
> BTW, this part of the whole platform is at a point of diminishing
> returns;  I'd happily accept the status quo here in exchange for
> consideration of various other concerns.  I've asked my (mostly

You can have everything but the UAVs. :)

> Z / S:  could that in fact be the case?  Perhaps you recognize that
> the system as constructed is not "fair" in the sense of providing
> equal protection / balanced risk-reward to both the plaintiff and the
> defendant in any given case, but rather you regard the system as
> "fair" in that it provides what you see as a desirable *imbalance* in
> favor of the little guy.  I.e., gov't establishment exists in part to

Well, yes. That's why we have antitrust laws, the bill of rights, and
so on.  The "big guys" don't need (as much) protection.  You don't need
free speech rights if you're in the vast majority ("the big guy", in that
scenario). Of course one can go too far with "protecting" people, and I
think our current system, in the end, probably does (litigation-wise), but
wiping that out entirely is just as bad an idea -- the idea that forcing
plaintiffs to put up a bond equal to what they're asking for is "leveling
the playing field" is ridiculous.  I think you're right that in a perfect
world, this would be an ideal system. But, pragmatically... no.  You're
goin' all Obama on the current system's Bush. :)




More information about the FoRK mailing list