Philosophy Friday - Hold the government strictly liable

[jgillmanjr]

So, I ended up stumbling on a piece I had written a while back, and figured I'd start a discussion here: Should the government be held strictly liable when their positive actions lead to the loss of individual liberties? I would say they should! Note: The suing the voters part was more tongue-in-cheek. Also note: This is a philosophy discussion, not whether or not you could actually sue the government (sovereign immunity and what not).

Given that we've had legal clowns (Traynor and Cardozo to name two of the prominent proponents) pushing the concept of strict liability as legitimate, I say we give them what they want and apply it equally.

In the piece that I linked above, I used gun control as the topic to illustrate the idea of strict liability against the government might work. Basically, as a result of the governments affirmative action to restrict the ability to bear arms, if someone were to get injured or killed because they couldn't defend themselves, the government should be sued.

However, any numerous other situations would play into this. Medical care could certainly be a big one.

Say that a relative is terminally ill. Their passing is not a matter of if, but when. One of the doctors has done some research on a procedure that might potentially cure the illness, however, they are prohibited by government regulation from performing it. I would argue that this would be another situation where the government should be sued. Certainly the procedure might not have worked, but it might have. It's not known because the government PROHIBITED even the possibility of seeing the outcome.

People like to claim that without the FDA, people would die because of certain medications. Maybe. However that's an issue the free market and the court system can take care of. However, how many people die as a result of not getting access to potentially life saving medicines because of FDA regulations?

So what say you? Do you hold a logically bankrupt double standard and think the government should be treated differently? Or do you think they should be held accountable for their positive actions affecting our ability to care for ourselves?

[bigt8261]

Wouldn't the standard of reasonably foreseeable be enough when it comes to gun control? My guess is everyone here would agree.

[jgillmanjr]

Wouldn't the standard of reasonably foreseeable be enough when it comes to gun control? My guess is everyone here would agree.

Guess I'm not quite following.

[bigt8261]

If you ban guns somewhere, it is reasonably foreseeable that only criminals will have guns there.

[jgillmanjr]

If you ban guns somewhere, it is reasonably foreseeable that only criminals will have guns there.

That could be argued, yes.

Are you saying that the government could claim that even under strict liability, that the plaintiff couldn't bring an action under the premise that they could have foreseen that only criminals would have had guns, and therefore were entering at their own risk?

[TheQ]

Regarding the FDA, Mary Ruwart's book is a great resource:

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/

[bigt8261]

Are you saying that the government could claim that even under strict liability, that the plaintiff couldn't bring an action under the premise that they could have foreseen that only criminals would have had guns, and therefore were entering at their own risk?

Close but the opposite. If the government bans guns in a place, it would be reasonably foreseeable that their actions would cause only criminals to have guns in that place, thus making them liable for any harm that may come from the government's actions.

[jgillmanjr]

Close but the opposite. If the government bans guns in a place, it would be reasonably foreseeable that their actions would cause only criminals to have guns in that place, thus making them liable for any harm that may come from the government's actions.

Ahh, ok. Wasn't sure if you were playing devils advocate or not.

Yes, that's what I would argue as well. Another thing, even if a location was staffed by law enforcement (or some other government contracted security), if something bad happened, I would say strict liability should still attach.

[bigt8261]

Ahh, ok. Wasn't sure if you were playing devils advocate or not.

Yes, that's what I would argue as well. Another thing, even if a location was staffed by law enforcement (or some other government contracted security), if something bad happened, I would say strict liability should still attach.

Good example of where SL (strict liability) would be needed over RF (something that is reasonably foreseeable).

I'm not sure I would go that far, but I think it's an interesting topic.

For starters, how would we draw the line between where we should rely on LE, and where we should not? Currently, based on liability, we never rely on LE.

[jgillmanjr]

Good example of where SL (strict liability) would be needed over RF (something that is reasonably foreseeable).

I'm not sure I would go that far, but I think it's an interesting topic.

For starters, how would we draw the line between where we should rely on LE, and where we should not? Currently, based on liability, we never rely on LE.

I would argue that we shouldn't be forced to rely on a third party.

[bigt8261]

So only when disarmed by government, would they then be strictly liable. I should have caught that. You did explain it to me after all.

[jgillmanjr]

So only when disarmed by government, would they then be strictly liable. I should have caught that. You did explain it to me after all.

Eh, it's merely an issue of time if you don't immediate catch what I'm saying.

The benefits of working in IT and all - logic is logic.