Monday, October 18, 2004
SUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEED
Prop 64. The absurd notion that people actually have to be hurt in order to sue for damages.
Beetle the Idealistic Voter feels that since the arguments against this law basically say "Yes, we know we're exploiting a loophole, but it's for a good cause," it's not for a good cause. Lawsuits are means to curtail and rectify damages by one party upon another. If no damages exist, there should be no lawsuit. YES on 64.
Beetle the Pragmatic Voter plans to leave California, and the Earth in general, before it is completely destroyed, and therefore is unconcerned with the environmental impact of Prop 64. The people who benefit from these kinds of lawsuits are invariably not BPV, while those who suffer are those who supply BPV cheaply with products built off the sweat and blood of those less fortunate. The choice is clear. YES on 64.
Beetle the Entertainer reminds readers that "Little guy vs Big guy" lawsuits make for great inflated rhetoric by one party and trite "no comment" statements by the other. This is a valuable resource we can't possibly risk losing. NO on 64.
Beetle the Bitter Foe of All Humanity recognizes that this proposition could have a significant environmental impact and broaden the ability of corporations to exploit humanity. YES on 64.
. . .
|
. . .
|
