tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (01/04/86)
> Yes, but it seems to me that the current practice of the courts in this > respect is very un-libertarian. That is, I would think that a libertarian > regards an individual as the best authority on the value of his own life. Bad joke, witting distortion, or both? The value to himself, perhaps. Value is relative to the valuer, and values have no objective measure. But in legal matters, it is sometimes necessary to assign a value to something. (Unfortunately, this is abused, as in taxation and eminent domain.) The value assigned must then depend on market values. Where there is no direct measure of market value, as with a person's life, indirect measures must be used. The reason you can speak of a measure of market value objectively is that it is historical, and that it is measured in a fairly stable and fungible good. The measure is not exact, both due to the nature of the values traded and due to projection into a hypothetical situation. But the measure is as reliable as you can find, where objectivity is necessary. The worst problems with the current litigiousness stem from a lack of objectivity with regard to law and with regard to damages. Objectivity in law is necessary for predictability in planning and for the eradication of political pull from the carriage of justice. (Of course, penalties as disincentives are not the same as damages for restitution.) David Hudson
torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (01/07/86)
In article <312@frog.UUCP> tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) writes: >> Yes, but it seems to me that the current practice of the courts in this >> respect is very un-libertarian. That is, I would think that a libertarian >> regards an individual as the best authority on the value of his own life. >The value to himself, perhaps. Value is relative to the >valuer, and values have no objective measure. Thank you for ESTABLISHING my point! >But in legal matters, it is sometimes necessary to assign a value to >something. (Unfortunately, this is abused, as in taxation >and eminent domain.) Or as in janw's scheme. No? Why is it that libertarians forget their libertarianism at the most convenient moments? Fed up, --Paul V. Torek torek@umich
tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (01/10/86)
>>> Yes, but it seems to me that the current practice of the courts in this >>> respect is very un-libertarian. That is, I would think that a libertarian >>> regards an individual as the best authority on the value of his own life. >> The value to himself, perhaps. Value is relative to the >> valuer, and values have no objective measure. > Thank you for ESTABLISHING my point! No. Current conditions and the fact that values have no objective measure do not imply that the current practice of the courts in this respect is very un-libertarian. If damages need to be assigned, criteria for damages need to be designed in view of the lack of objective measure. You are not at that point dealing with a trading relation; the reversed rankings of traders (each valuing what the other has more) have no bearing. >> But in legal matters, it is sometimes necessary to assign a value to >> something. (Unfortunately, this is abused, as in taxation >> and eminent domain.) > Or as in janw's scheme. No? Why is it that libertarians forget their > libertarianism at the most convenient moments? Specificly what inconsistency are you alleging that I hold? > Fed up, > --Paul V. Torek torek@umich Then take some time to finish digesting, eliminate the waste to make room for more, and dine again. David Hudson