So... this may be an extremely taboo question to ask in pro-Israel United States, but... in what way are Israel's recent attacks on Gaza 'self-defense'? Sure, there's been rocket fire aimed by Hamas (and others) at Israel, but I'm not sure I comprehend the allegation that Israel constantly has to fear for its own existence.
It seems to me that Israel fears for its own existence as much as the U.S. fears for its existence vis-a-vis terrorism. I.e. It doesn't really. (Though this Russian professor would argue the U.S. should be fearing for its own existence.)
I'm not saying Israel is wrong to go hammering on Hamas in retaliation for attacks on its citizens. I'm saying it's weird to frame the whole Israel issue as self-defense.
[XY comment]: I agree that you can't really label this action as self-defense. If a bully punches you in the arm, and you take a bat to his head - is that self-defense? This isn't to say that I'm against Israel's actions just that the rhetoric about it being self-defense is more spin than fact.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
Ponzis Galore
The Medicare Ponzi Scheme - This blogger compares the Madoff ponzi scheme to Medicare's huge ($85 trillion) unfunded liability.
[more thoughts to come later...]
[XY comment]: While there is some similarities between the Madoff scheme and healthcare (you could also throw in social security), there is one huge difference: the government. The government is backing these programs, and the government obviously has powers that no institution or individual has. When a company has an unfunded pension plan, that is a serious problem that can bankrupt the company. The government has much deeper pockets and has the power of taxation to raise substantial funds over time. Despite huge obligations to healthcare and social security, there is no reason to think the government cannot raise the funds through taxation although there is always a chance of government default as well (lowering the promised benefits or simply not paying back debt). On the other hand, Madoff can't tax anyone so his default is automatic.
[more thoughts to come later...]
[XY comment]: While there is some similarities between the Madoff scheme and healthcare (you could also throw in social security), there is one huge difference: the government. The government is backing these programs, and the government obviously has powers that no institution or individual has. When a company has an unfunded pension plan, that is a serious problem that can bankrupt the company. The government has much deeper pockets and has the power of taxation to raise substantial funds over time. Despite huge obligations to healthcare and social security, there is no reason to think the government cannot raise the funds through taxation although there is always a chance of government default as well (lowering the promised benefits or simply not paying back debt). On the other hand, Madoff can't tax anyone so his default is automatic.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
How much are you worth?
How much is U2's or Madonna's work worth? - I didn't know about this deal, but apparently Live Nation has bought the revenues from these artists' work (including concerts and some merchandising). This is a really cool and interesting deal that deserves discussion. Additionally this brings up an interesting philosophical and economic question: How much are you worth?
I've always wondered how much I'm worth. This music deal is a bit different because it is valuing the work of these artists and not their perceived values of their lives etc. This issue comes up in Law frequently when assessing damages etc. How do you quantify the damages of an accident or injury? Starting with the value of the individual's current and future stream of income seems like a good place ot start, but additionally you have to consider how much a person values her own life etc. In economics, this has proved to be a vexing problem: how much a person values her own life can be hard to measure from observed behavior. If you try and ask someone, their answer will depend on how you ask them! I'll let XX add more thoughts on the legal implications of this type of question.
Back to the article, my understanding is that Live Nation swapped equity for the revenue streams from these artists. But the deal sounds more like a convertible bond - the artists were guaranteed a certain amount of money (like a bond) but retained upside if the stock price rises (hence a convertible option). In other words their equity is protected and cannot fall below a certain value.
Is this a good business model? Granting these artists equity makes a lot of sense. By having equity in Live Nation, these artists diversify their income with the incomes of other artists employed by the company. While they might have slightly weaker incentives, I doubt that would affect their musical efforts.
Additionally there's a lot less risk with the guaranteed minimum value (25mn) to U2and Madonna. However, only SOME of these artists had these minimum value guarantees. This represented a risk transfer among the artists. Jay-Z, Nickelback, Shakira and other artists without the guarantee took on extra risk while Madonna and U2 had their risk covered. I sort of doubt how much they thought about that when they signed on with Live Nation. How big of a risk transfer? A year ago, the company was worth well over 1 billion, and it was unlikely that the guarantees to U2 and Madonna would ever kick in since the equity was worth more than the guaranteed amount.
Now? The guarantees amount to an additional 38 million total to U2 and Madonna (They were guaranteed 50 million the market value of the equity is only 12 million). Live Nation has a current market cap of 305 million. That's big in both absolute and relative terms. It's fair to say that it may be difficult for Live Nation to come up with the cash in this environment. The other Live Nation artists are losing not only because their equity is down, but because of this additional payout to their rivals (well I guess they don't really compete for the same listeners). A really interesting transfer of risk and wealth thanks to the stock market.
I've always wondered how much I'm worth. This music deal is a bit different because it is valuing the work of these artists and not their perceived values of their lives etc. This issue comes up in Law frequently when assessing damages etc. How do you quantify the damages of an accident or injury? Starting with the value of the individual's current and future stream of income seems like a good place ot start, but additionally you have to consider how much a person values her own life etc. In economics, this has proved to be a vexing problem: how much a person values her own life can be hard to measure from observed behavior. If you try and ask someone, their answer will depend on how you ask them! I'll let XX add more thoughts on the legal implications of this type of question.
Back to the article, my understanding is that Live Nation swapped equity for the revenue streams from these artists. But the deal sounds more like a convertible bond - the artists were guaranteed a certain amount of money (like a bond) but retained upside if the stock price rises (hence a convertible option). In other words their equity is protected and cannot fall below a certain value.
Is this a good business model? Granting these artists equity makes a lot of sense. By having equity in Live Nation, these artists diversify their income with the incomes of other artists employed by the company. While they might have slightly weaker incentives, I doubt that would affect their musical efforts.
Additionally there's a lot less risk with the guaranteed minimum value (25mn) to U2and Madonna. However, only SOME of these artists had these minimum value guarantees. This represented a risk transfer among the artists. Jay-Z, Nickelback, Shakira and other artists without the guarantee took on extra risk while Madonna and U2 had their risk covered. I sort of doubt how much they thought about that when they signed on with Live Nation. How big of a risk transfer? A year ago, the company was worth well over 1 billion, and it was unlikely that the guarantees to U2 and Madonna would ever kick in since the equity was worth more than the guaranteed amount.
Now? The guarantees amount to an additional 38 million total to U2 and Madonna (They were guaranteed 50 million the market value of the equity is only 12 million). Live Nation has a current market cap of 305 million. That's big in both absolute and relative terms. It's fair to say that it may be difficult for Live Nation to come up with the cash in this environment. The other Live Nation artists are losing not only because their equity is down, but because of this additional payout to their rivals (well I guess they don't really compete for the same listeners). A really interesting transfer of risk and wealth thanks to the stock market.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Religious Medicine
Hypothetical: An 8-year-old girl is injured in a car accident by a negligent driver. She and her mother are devout Christian Scientists. Mother takes daughter to the hospital. Daughter gets superficial medical attention. Mother withdraws daughter from the hospital early, before surgeons have a chance to operate, and completely against medical advice. As a result, the daughter's injuries are aggravated.
Should the driver/hospital/doctors be liable for the girl's aggravated injuries and for the mother's added medical expenses because the injuries were aggravated?
Answer: My gut instinct is to say, look, if you're going to follow your "religious" beliefs and do stupid things like go against doctor's advice, you should bear the consequences. But why should the daughter bear the loss for the idiocy of her mother?
Even so, I'm not all that unsympathetic. It's like those anti-vaccine cases. If a parent refuses to get her kid vaccinated, and then the kid comes down with Whatever Disease, not only should the parent bear the kid's medical costs and not be able to sue the doctor, but I might even go so far as to make the parent liable for any medical expenses of kids who are infected by that infected kid who didn't get vaccinated.
Hypothetical 2: A Catholic couple decides they can no longer afford to have any more children. They go to the clinic to get a sterilization procedure. The doctor malpractices the woman and misperforms the sterilization. Woman becomes pregnant. Should the woman be required to mitigate her damages by either aborting (against her beliefs) or giving the kid up for adoption?
Answer: This question troubles me a lot more than the Christian Scientist example. And I don't think it's because Catholicism is a more widely held belief system. Perhaps it's because it has to do with abortion. It doesn't seem reasonable for anyone, no matter what their religious beliefs, to get a necessary operation, but to me it does seem reasonable for a person not to want to abort her kid or give her kid up for adoption once she has it. I mean, this is motherhood we're talking about here, even though the couple originally didn't want this baby.
My friend tried to convince me that this 2nd Hypothetical is just like the 1st in that you should suffer the consequences of following your beliefs in the medical context. But... I'm not so sure. Any thoughts?
[/XY comment]: I don't see how these two hypotheticals are equivalent. In the first case, the injuries are caused by a car accident. In the second case, there is malpractice. So I think it's fair to say in the second case the hospital and doctor is liable. They performed a procedure incorrectly. Am I missing something?
[/XX edit]: I'd meant that the girl was injured by a negligent driver. So, is the driver liable for only the girl's 'original' injuries, or also for her aggravated injuries?
Should the driver/hospital/doctors be liable for the girl's aggravated injuries and for the mother's added medical expenses because the injuries were aggravated?
Answer: My gut instinct is to say, look, if you're going to follow your "religious" beliefs and do stupid things like go against doctor's advice, you should bear the consequences. But why should the daughter bear the loss for the idiocy of her mother?
Even so, I'm not all that unsympathetic. It's like those anti-vaccine cases. If a parent refuses to get her kid vaccinated, and then the kid comes down with Whatever Disease, not only should the parent bear the kid's medical costs and not be able to sue the doctor, but I might even go so far as to make the parent liable for any medical expenses of kids who are infected by that infected kid who didn't get vaccinated.
Hypothetical 2: A Catholic couple decides they can no longer afford to have any more children. They go to the clinic to get a sterilization procedure. The doctor malpractices the woman and misperforms the sterilization. Woman becomes pregnant. Should the woman be required to mitigate her damages by either aborting (against her beliefs) or giving the kid up for adoption?
Answer: This question troubles me a lot more than the Christian Scientist example. And I don't think it's because Catholicism is a more widely held belief system. Perhaps it's because it has to do with abortion. It doesn't seem reasonable for anyone, no matter what their religious beliefs, to get a necessary operation, but to me it does seem reasonable for a person not to want to abort her kid or give her kid up for adoption once she has it. I mean, this is motherhood we're talking about here, even though the couple originally didn't want this baby.
My friend tried to convince me that this 2nd Hypothetical is just like the 1st in that you should suffer the consequences of following your beliefs in the medical context. But... I'm not so sure. Any thoughts?
[/XY comment]: I don't see how these two hypotheticals are equivalent. In the first case, the injuries are caused by a car accident. In the second case, there is malpractice. So I think it's fair to say in the second case the hospital and doctor is liable. They performed a procedure incorrectly. Am I missing something?
[/XX edit]: I'd meant that the girl was injured by a negligent driver. So, is the driver liable for only the girl's 'original' injuries, or also for her aggravated injuries?
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Corruption...
Governor soliciting bribes- A very sad day indeed for the American political system. The case does raise some interesting questions:
1) Why pull the plug on the investigation now?
2) Who are the people that offered $$ for the seat, or for other things?
3) Who stepped forward to bring allegations that began the investigation?
4) Given the absolutely wide scope of his corruption, who DIDN'T STEP forward with knowledge of the solicitation.
I guess we won't know the full details for a while, but it is clear that quite a few people had to be aware of the activities going on. You can't get bribes unless you let people know you'll take a bribe and at least some of his staff was complicit in the solicitation.
Regarding (1), it seems to me that they could have let the case go longer. When you have all the wiretaps and monitoring equipment in place, why not let the governor continue to hang himself? I don't think any appointment of a replacement for Obama was imminent. Additionally, it would allow more gathering of information about who was willing to pay for the seat and what was being offered. Given the amount of corruption in Illinois, implicating more people and finding out who was willing to play ball has to be a good thing. The obvious (and cynical) answer is that they ran with the case now to save the democrats (the people in 2) from further embarassment. The governor wasn't about to appoint a Republican to the seat, it had to be prominent democrats in the bidding. Letting the case go further would have lead to more names, and dare I say names of people who are involved with our president-elect, who has so far escaped the taint of any involvement. I do find it unbelievable that he never spoke with the governor about his replacement as he now claims, but so far nothing has linked him directly to this corruption (yeah!). The people (4) willing to pay bribes are just as culpable, and deserve to be embarassed at the minimum.
edit: After taking a peak at the affidavit, it appears that a tribune article stating that the governor was under close investigation and being recorded forced the investigators to act sooner rather than later. One wonders if it's really in the public interest to publish such an article and to tip off the person being investigated. One also wonders who leaked such information to the press. Freedom of the press has immeasurable benefits...but it has costs as well.
[/XX comment]
I'm still not convinced that the arrest was timed so as to avoid embarrassing prominent Democrats in the bidding for the spot. I mean, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. But again, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was a Republican appointee.
Another rather cynical point I would make is... even if someone had pulled the plug early to save Democrats' face, would that be such a terrible thing? I mean, you have to balance (a) leaving wealthy, overly ambitious, unscrupulous characters lurking in the shadows (which they may have done anyway, in spite of any flushing out of Candidate 5s and whatnots); and (b) completely undermining public confidence in Illinois legislators - I mean, more than Blagojevich's blatant corruption has already.
And it's not clear to me that (b) is not an important enough interest to at least counterbalance the desire to flush out unsavory characters.
1) Why pull the plug on the investigation now?
2) Who are the people that offered $$ for the seat, or for other things?
3) Who stepped forward to bring allegations that began the investigation?
4) Given the absolutely wide scope of his corruption, who DIDN'T STEP forward with knowledge of the solicitation.
I guess we won't know the full details for a while, but it is clear that quite a few people had to be aware of the activities going on. You can't get bribes unless you let people know you'll take a bribe and at least some of his staff was complicit in the solicitation.
Regarding (1), it seems to me that they could have let the case go longer. When you have all the wiretaps and monitoring equipment in place, why not let the governor continue to hang himself? I don't think any appointment of a replacement for Obama was imminent. Additionally, it would allow more gathering of information about who was willing to pay for the seat and what was being offered. Given the amount of corruption in Illinois, implicating more people and finding out who was willing to play ball has to be a good thing. The obvious (and cynical) answer is that they ran with the case now to save the democrats (the people in 2) from further embarassment. The governor wasn't about to appoint a Republican to the seat, it had to be prominent democrats in the bidding. Letting the case go further would have lead to more names, and dare I say names of people who are involved with our president-elect, who has so far escaped the taint of any involvement. I do find it unbelievable that he never spoke with the governor about his replacement as he now claims, but so far nothing has linked him directly to this corruption (yeah!). The people (4) willing to pay bribes are just as culpable, and deserve to be embarassed at the minimum.
edit: After taking a peak at the affidavit, it appears that a tribune article stating that the governor was under close investigation and being recorded forced the investigators to act sooner rather than later. One wonders if it's really in the public interest to publish such an article and to tip off the person being investigated. One also wonders who leaked such information to the press. Freedom of the press has immeasurable benefits...but it has costs as well.
[/XX comment]
I'm still not convinced that the arrest was timed so as to avoid embarrassing prominent Democrats in the bidding for the spot. I mean, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. But again, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was a Republican appointee.
Another rather cynical point I would make is... even if someone had pulled the plug early to save Democrats' face, would that be such a terrible thing? I mean, you have to balance (a) leaving wealthy, overly ambitious, unscrupulous characters lurking in the shadows (which they may have done anyway, in spite of any flushing out of Candidate 5s and whatnots); and (b) completely undermining public confidence in Illinois legislators - I mean, more than Blagojevich's blatant corruption has already.
And it's not clear to me that (b) is not an important enough interest to at least counterbalance the desire to flush out unsavory characters.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Campaign financing
Money matters - This might suggest I'm wee bit more than a little right of center, but I agree with Karl Rove's evaluation of current campaign financing. I don't think the restrictions prevent huge donations from individuals. I feel the focus should be on transparency so that we know where all the money is coming from. Some very rich donors bankrolled a lot of Obama's campaign - nothing is wrong with that, but I do feel the public should have the right to know where all the money is coming from and the identity of donators.
[/XX comment]:
Campaign financing is not a topic I'm particularly interested in. And perhaps my position on it reflects a naivete or plumb ignorance (or that I'm less left of center than *I* would like to think), but ... I'm not sure I have a problem with either boatloads of money being spent on politics, or with inequality of resources between candidates.
I mean, I can't think of any other situations where we try to limit the money that people have to spend, if they have the money and they want to spend it. The O.J. Simpsons of the world can spend millions of dollars on getting the best lawyers, but Average Joe Criminal is stuck with the overburdened public defender. Rich people have advantages in all walks of life, not just getting into elected office. I'm not sure why all this hoopla/uproar is limited to campaigns. Especially since... a person doesn't have a constitutional right to be elected to office. You wouldn't argue that government has the obligation to help a person [financially] get elected. So I don't see why you would argue that a person shouldn't use all the resources he may get to help himself get elected.
That being said, I totally agree that the focus should be on transparency. You're never going to truly balance out resources - because there are non-monetary resources as well. And even if you set strict campaign spending caps, other interested parties will spend on behalf of the campaign, and from a practical standpoint, those expenditures are impossible to police. And I'm not sure that I value equality of resources enough to spend more resources trying to police the amount of resources spent.
I agree with XY's - and Rove's - suggestion of transparency by publishing and reporting donations. This solution (a) seems the most practical and (b) would at least partly address the problems of legitimacy and appearance of corruption that campaign finance reform is intended to cure.
Oh, and as an aside, Republicans used to like to argue that because money = speech (i.e. contributing to a campaign is political expression), the First Amendment prohibits restrictions on campaign donations. Rove mentioned this briefly in his article, with the caveat that Democrats in the Obama Age might have to concede the point to protect their bankroll. I think the whole thing is kind of bogus. Money is money. I mean, I still come out the same as Rove, but this whole money is protected by the First Amendment concept is just unconvincing...
[/XY comment]:
I see no reason that campaign contributions should be protected by the constitution, but in general I don't like government interference. I just want to add that people can spend money however they want and it's none of my business. Here I only care because who the future president is getting money from speaks to his future associations and people who will have influence. I think that's more important than his past reverend etc.
[/XX comment]:
Campaign financing is not a topic I'm particularly interested in. And perhaps my position on it reflects a naivete or plumb ignorance (or that I'm less left of center than *I* would like to think), but ... I'm not sure I have a problem with either boatloads of money being spent on politics, or with inequality of resources between candidates.
I mean, I can't think of any other situations where we try to limit the money that people have to spend, if they have the money and they want to spend it. The O.J. Simpsons of the world can spend millions of dollars on getting the best lawyers, but Average Joe Criminal is stuck with the overburdened public defender. Rich people have advantages in all walks of life, not just getting into elected office. I'm not sure why all this hoopla/uproar is limited to campaigns. Especially since... a person doesn't have a constitutional right to be elected to office. You wouldn't argue that government has the obligation to help a person [financially] get elected. So I don't see why you would argue that a person shouldn't use all the resources he may get to help himself get elected.
That being said, I totally agree that the focus should be on transparency. You're never going to truly balance out resources - because there are non-monetary resources as well. And even if you set strict campaign spending caps, other interested parties will spend on behalf of the campaign, and from a practical standpoint, those expenditures are impossible to police. And I'm not sure that I value equality of resources enough to spend more resources trying to police the amount of resources spent.
I agree with XY's - and Rove's - suggestion of transparency by publishing and reporting donations. This solution (a) seems the most practical and (b) would at least partly address the problems of legitimacy and appearance of corruption that campaign finance reform is intended to cure.
Oh, and as an aside, Republicans used to like to argue that because money = speech (i.e. contributing to a campaign is political expression), the First Amendment prohibits restrictions on campaign donations. Rove mentioned this briefly in his article, with the caveat that Democrats in the Obama Age might have to concede the point to protect their bankroll. I think the whole thing is kind of bogus. Money is money. I mean, I still come out the same as Rove, but this whole money is protected by the First Amendment concept is just unconvincing...
[/XY comment]:
I see no reason that campaign contributions should be protected by the constitution, but in general I don't like government interference. I just want to add that people can spend money however they want and it's none of my business. Here I only care because who the future president is getting money from speaks to his future associations and people who will have influence. I think that's more important than his past reverend etc.
Hit my weight-lifting goal
Typical XY activity for a non-typical XY: max weight-lifting
We had checked our max bench press at the start of the semester (mine=165). I was able to lift 185 today, so increased my max 20 pounds in ~10 weeks. Pretty much everyone hit their goals, so we all made quite a bit of progress. It was anti-climactic but fun to actually attain my goal...now back to the dissertation!
[/XX comment]:
Awesome!
We had checked our max bench press at the start of the semester (mine=165). I was able to lift 185 today, so increased my max 20 pounds in ~10 weeks. Pretty much everyone hit their goals, so we all made quite a bit of progress. It was anti-climactic but fun to actually attain my goal...now back to the dissertation!
[/XX comment]:
Awesome!
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Spitzer on the Status Quo
Too Big Not to Fail - Former NY Governor Eliot Spitzer, Harvard Law School alum, and recently famous client of a high-end prostitution ring, has some intelligent words about bailouts, business models, and the "fatally flawed status quo."
[/XY comment]:
That's a well-articulated argument and I fundamentally agree with what he's saying. I do wonder whether it is a the boom-bust cycle of the economy and companies is fundamental to capitalism. A successful company is going to attract lots of capital. It will succeed sometimes, and it will fail sometimes. When it succeeds it becomes much larger, and may inevitably reach the `too-large to fail' point. This may be especially true for financial companies where money moves in and out rapidly and success is equally rapid and volatile.
[/XX response]:
I also fundamentally agree with Spitzer's argument, although I do think he sort of romanticizes the days of yore when businesses were smaller, more manageable, more flexible.
[/XY comment]:
That's a well-articulated argument and I fundamentally agree with what he's saying. I do wonder whether it is a the boom-bust cycle of the economy and companies is fundamental to capitalism. A successful company is going to attract lots of capital. It will succeed sometimes, and it will fail sometimes. When it succeeds it becomes much larger, and may inevitably reach the `too-large to fail' point. This may be especially true for financial companies where money moves in and out rapidly and success is equally rapid and volatile.
[/XX response]:
I also fundamentally agree with Spitzer's argument, although I do think he sort of romanticizes the days of yore when businesses were smaller, more manageable, more flexible.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Who is your customer?
I'm taking the chinatown bus back from NY to Boston on Sunday (trip took 6 hours...ugh) when I catch sight of a billboard advertisement.
GUNSHOW!! WE SELL GUNS!
NO ID REQUIRED. NO BACKGROUND CHECKS.
First a disclaimer. I'm pro gun-control. It seems like everyone would be safer if no one had a gun (except the police). Now what troubles me about this advertisement is the fact that they seem to be targeting a specific market. Obviously they are advertising to:
1) People who want to buy guns;
2) Additionally making it clear that they can sell to people who don't want ID checks or background checks.
It seems to me that the people who fit into 2 are:
2a) People who want guns quickly and don't want to wait for checks;
2b) People who wouldn't pass an ID check or background check.
Now it seems wrong to be selling guns to 2b, and to be advertising to them so blatantly just seems to run contrary to the good of the general citizenry. If I sell a gun to someone who I know will do something bad with it, I should be held responsible for the consequences if they are forseeable. I'm not sure you can make that argument with sales at gun shows, but the advertisement (while factually true and giving correct information) seems to appeal strongly to people we might not want to have guns and could expect to do bad things with them. I'm curious about the legal liability implied by gun sales. There was a Law and Order episode about guns that could be easily turned into automatic weapons, but I don't know any actual case law.
[/XX comment]:
Are you talking criminal liability or civil (tort) liability? (I don't know anything about criminal...)
Putting aside the 2nd Amendment issue here, I think one could make a strong argument that there should be legal liability for gun sales - at least those conducted without an ID or background check.
First off, aside from any statutory requirements there may be for background checks, the burden of taking these ID/background check precautions are miniscule. You plug the name into a database. You make the customer wait. These aren't particularly burdensome. (Though a libertarian may argue that the restriction on your freedom is, in itself, an unacceptable burden.)
The probability that harm would occur without such precautions is more debatable. This one could go either way, though I think it weighs in our favor. If, as you said, advertisements like the one you cited tend to draw group 2(b), then a reasonable person could foresee that serious harm - will result from the sale of the gun.
But there may be more debate there than either of us may want to admit. I mean, how far down the stream of foreseeability do we want to go?
If a gun dealer sells a gun to someone without an ID check, then that person's toddler son finds the gun, gives it to a friend, who shoots a valuable show dog that accidentally wandered into his backyard, do we want to hold the gun owner liable? What can we say is reasonably foreseeable? Is the gun dealer in the best position to make that call?
Taking this debate to another realm, the foreseeability argument was also used in an attempt to hold manufacturers of VHS recorders (and, more recently, Napster, KaZaa) liable because their products could foreseeably be used to break copyright laws. VHS recorders might be a different story, but if you make the argument that the only real foreseeable purpose of guns is to kill or hurt people, you might also have to concede that the only real foreseeable purpose of Bittorrent is to facilitate Internet piracy.
I'm just rambling now, ... having made no points directly addressing your interesting question. ;)
GUNSHOW!! WE SELL GUNS!
NO ID REQUIRED. NO BACKGROUND CHECKS.
First a disclaimer. I'm pro gun-control. It seems like everyone would be safer if no one had a gun (except the police). Now what troubles me about this advertisement is the fact that they seem to be targeting a specific market. Obviously they are advertising to:
1) People who want to buy guns;
2) Additionally making it clear that they can sell to people who don't want ID checks or background checks.
It seems to me that the people who fit into 2 are:
2a) People who want guns quickly and don't want to wait for checks;
2b) People who wouldn't pass an ID check or background check.
Now it seems wrong to be selling guns to 2b, and to be advertising to them so blatantly just seems to run contrary to the good of the general citizenry. If I sell a gun to someone who I know will do something bad with it, I should be held responsible for the consequences if they are forseeable. I'm not sure you can make that argument with sales at gun shows, but the advertisement (while factually true and giving correct information) seems to appeal strongly to people we might not want to have guns and could expect to do bad things with them. I'm curious about the legal liability implied by gun sales. There was a Law and Order episode about guns that could be easily turned into automatic weapons, but I don't know any actual case law.
[/XX comment]:
Are you talking criminal liability or civil (tort) liability? (I don't know anything about criminal...)
Putting aside the 2nd Amendment issue here, I think one could make a strong argument that there should be legal liability for gun sales - at least those conducted without an ID or background check.
First off, aside from any statutory requirements there may be for background checks, the burden of taking these ID/background check precautions are miniscule. You plug the name into a database. You make the customer wait. These aren't particularly burdensome. (Though a libertarian may argue that the restriction on your freedom is, in itself, an unacceptable burden.)
The probability that harm would occur without such precautions is more debatable. This one could go either way, though I think it weighs in our favor. If, as you said, advertisements like the one you cited tend to draw group 2(b), then a reasonable person could foresee that serious harm - will result from the sale of the gun.
But there may be more debate there than either of us may want to admit. I mean, how far down the stream of foreseeability do we want to go?
If a gun dealer sells a gun to someone without an ID check, then that person's toddler son finds the gun, gives it to a friend, who shoots a valuable show dog that accidentally wandered into his backyard, do we want to hold the gun owner liable? What can we say is reasonably foreseeable? Is the gun dealer in the best position to make that call?
Taking this debate to another realm, the foreseeability argument was also used in an attempt to hold manufacturers of VHS recorders (and, more recently, Napster, KaZaa) liable because their products could foreseeably be used to break copyright laws. VHS recorders might be a different story, but if you make the argument that the only real foreseeable purpose of guns is to kill or hurt people, you might also have to concede that the only real foreseeable purpose of Bittorrent is to facilitate Internet piracy.
I'm just rambling now, ... having made no points directly addressing your interesting question. ;)
Monday, December 1, 2008
Premature Coronation
The Hope for Audacity - This Atlantic article explores the differences between Obama (or should we say ... BHO?) and FDR and LBJ.
Now, I voted for Obama in the election. But it seems to me quite ridiculous all of the presidential parallels that have been and continue to be drawn between Obama and the 'great presidents' - Lincoln, FDR, LBJ, and the like.
News flash, guys. Obama isn't the president yet. He hasn't done anything, except win an election, talk about plans, and appoint some people. It all seems to me to be entirely premature. I know the comparisons are just a reflection of the people's deep hopes in the Obama presidency. And, to some extent, I shared and still share those hopes.
But I have fears, too. It's a uniquely troubling time, with recession [finally] being declared and stock markets crashing, and terrorists seemingly gaining strength. (Somewhere down the line, historians are going to be studying this era.) I'm waiting with bated breath to see whether the president-elect will earn his already bestowed crown.
Now, I voted for Obama in the election. But it seems to me quite ridiculous all of the presidential parallels that have been and continue to be drawn between Obama and the 'great presidents' - Lincoln, FDR, LBJ, and the like.
News flash, guys. Obama isn't the president yet. He hasn't done anything, except win an election, talk about plans, and appoint some people. It all seems to me to be entirely premature. I know the comparisons are just a reflection of the people's deep hopes in the Obama presidency. And, to some extent, I shared and still share those hopes.
But I have fears, too. It's a uniquely troubling time, with recession [finally] being declared and stock markets crashing, and terrorists seemingly gaining strength. (Somewhere down the line, historians are going to be studying this era.) I'm waiting with bated breath to see whether the president-elect will earn his already bestowed crown.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)