On Mar 18, 2016, Salguod Nairb wrote:
Ground Rules: You are allowed to disagree with an idea, but must suggest one yourself. So no blatant criticism without contributing as well. Contribute one thing per post; so no lists please.

A Perfect World. Considering the other threads on NVMS (Global Warming, Military Spending, Gun stuff, etc), if you had to power to change one thing to make the world a better place what would it be?

I have some rather extreme concepts so you would never want me to be in charge, so my least extreme concept would be to eliminate 99% of private vehicles and make public transportation mandatory.

This is a detail list from 2010
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mo......_by_year



Month Fatalities In-vehicle casualties (excluding uninjured bus occupants)Non-vehicle casualties (including pedestrians)


2010-01-- 2290---------4785------------------------------------------------------------- 427
2010-02-- 2016-------- 4340------------------------------------------------------------- 386
2010-03-- 2423-------- 5087------------------------------------------------------------- 407
2010-04-- 2777-------- 5775------------------------------------------------------------- 404
2010-05-- 2934-------- 6066------------------------------------------------------------- 418
2010-06-- 2795-------- 5809------------------------------------------------------------- 348
2010-07-- 3095-------- 6763------------------------------------------------------------- 456
2010-08-- 3083-------- 6549------------------------------------------------------------- 428
2010-09-- 3024-------- 6309------------------------------------------------------------- 511
2010-10-- 3056-------- 6382------------------------------------------------------------- 543
2010-11-- 2795-------- 5842------------------------------------------------------------- 573
2010-12-- 2597-------- 5417------------------------------------------------------------- 548

This isn't just about public safety (though it would save a lot of lives), but to remove that desire for status verses the general public good. It would also reduce pollution and carbon footprints as well.

Of course the public transportation would have to be seriously upgraded. I would rather like the idea of not having to drive to and fro after a hard day at work.

On Mar 18, 2016, landmark wrote:
#2: Legalize all drugs; retain harsh penalties for crimes that happen while under the influence.

Save billions in enforcement; stop filling the jails with people who are not criminals; undercut the excuse used to arm paramilitaries and intervention around the world; increase tax revenue from both users and sellers; medicalize addiction problem so that some useful research concerning addiction could actually take place. Seems like a no-brainer to me, but of course, YMMV.

On Mar 18, 2016, Salguod Nairb wrote:
#2 Mandatory Military or Civil Service after high school or college for 2 years.

This would provide a skill set to build upon. If physically unfit for the military civil service (post office, DMV, Etc...) would eliminate most of the disgruntle workers; seeing it would only be for 2 years.

Continued service in both services would be optional to the individual.

On Mar 18, 2016, Bob1Dog wrote:
Civil law suits:

Losing plaintiff pays all court costs, defendant's court costs and penalty to defendant, set by judge or jury.

On Mar 18, 2016, Salguod Nairb wrote:
#2 Mandatory Military or Civil Service after high school or college for 2 years.

This would provide a skill set to build upon. If physically unfit for the military civil service (post office, DMV, Etc...) would eliminate most of the disgruntle workers; seeing it would only be for 2 years.

Continued service in both services would be optional to the individual.

On Mar 18, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Mar 18, 2016, Bob1Dog wrote:
Civil law suits:

Losing plaintiff pays all court costs, defendant's court costs and penalty to defendant, set by judge or jury.

That one's got some real pros and cons. "Loser pays" is done in some specific circumstances, but it does deter people with legitimate cases from pursuing those cases if the outcome is uncertain. If you have a $20,000 personal injury case and it really is someone else's fault, you can pursue it on a contingency (pay if you win) basis, but what are you going to do if it's only 60% likely that you'll win, and you'll be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars if you don't? Forced to take a big gamble or eat the damage.

It's got some definite upside, too, but it's not a no-brainer.

On Mar 18, 2016, Bob1Dog wrote:

Quote:

On Mar 18, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Mar 18, 2016, Bob1Dog wrote:
Civil law suits:

Losing plaintiff pays all court costs, defendant's court costs and penalty to defendant, set by judge or jury.

That one's got some real pros and cons. "Loser pays" is done in some specific circumstances, but it does deter people with legitimate cases from pursuing those cases if the outcome is uncertain. If you have a $20,000 personal injury case and it really is someone else's fault, you can pursue it on a contingency (pay if you win) basis, but what are you going to do if it's only 60% likely that you'll win, and you'll be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars if you don't? Forced to take a big gamble or eat the damage.

It's got some definite upside, too, but it's not a no-brainer.

Lobo, I would expect a lawyer to take your position. But my main drive here is to prevent folks from pursuing frivolous law suits. If you have a case and it has merit then, sue. But sorry, if you go after me and lose, you should at least have to pay court costs and defendant's legal costs. Folks today have become far too litigious in the effort to make a quick buck; just looking for reasons to sue someone. I live in fear of it myself. Someone trips on my sidewalk and breaks his/her hip, I get sued. It happens all the time. Prove why I caused the fall and win. Don't prove it and you pay my legal fees for my having to defend myself. And court costs as well. Seems pretty simple to me. Try to understand it from my point of view as a layman and not a lawyer's point of view, and I don't mean that derisively.

On Mar 18, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:
If there's one thing that would improve the attitude of DMV workers, it's being forced to be there under penalty of law!

On Mar 18, 2016, landmark wrote:
#2: Legalize all drugs; retain harsh penalties for crimes that happen while under the influence.

Save billions in enforcement; stop filling the jails with people who are not criminals; undercut the excuse used to arm paramilitaries and intervention around the world; increase tax revenue from both users and sellers; medicalize addiction problem so that some useful research concerning addiction could actually take place. Seems like a no-brainer to me, but of course, YMMV.

On Mar 18, 2016, Bob1Dog wrote:
Civil law suits:

Losing plaintiff pays all court costs, defendant's court costs and penalty to defendant, set by judge or jury.

On Mar 18, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Put yourself in the position of someone of limited means or on a fixed income. You suffer $10,000 in damages. You have a meritorious case, but by no means a slam dunk. Under your proposal, you have two choices: Eat the $10,000, or sue and risk being out not only the $10,000, but several thousand more if you lose your NON-frivolous case. The current rules do incentive some bad cases to be pursued. But they also protect the rights of people who aren't rich to pursue good cases.