Isn't this case just so American? This is what we do, we pay off people as a short term solution to stop the airlines from failing, or suing the government. It is really like reverse personal responsibility. Let the government rid itself of hierarchical responsibility by establishing a fund. This fund will put it on the citizens to take on their initiative to adhere to the stipulations of the agreement.
The problem I see is precedence. I do not think it is just in the way in which VCF's are set up, or not set up. Going back to some of my points in class today, why set one up for 9/11 and not Hurricane Katrina? Isn't that a calculator in and of itself? Who is more valuable in this country? What building are worth giving billions to build? Downtown Manhattan or entire neighborhoods of New Orleans? In order for an action to be just, the means and ends have to be just. The very reasons of creating a VCF, can be a unjust in mind if they are, for example, to cover one's behind and not be for providing moral good to one's destroyed life.
In class the point was raised of separating terrorist attacks from natural disasters. The government has not been clear on this at all. Japanese interment camps to The World Trade Center Towers versus, slavery and Hurricane Katrina.
As a legislator or congressperson I would support a VCF if it provides the most good for the most number of people. I would also make sure that people who want to take part in it give up some of their private rights. To create a truly just equation to divide up the money, one must encroach upon a victims life to justify what the person get in dollar amounts. No money is ever the same, but I think theoretically it is possible to find a way to hand out money in a just way, and I will go as far to say it can be done in a fair way. (some may disagree by my use of the word fair but I think it is just)
I stand by my statement saying we should be able to sue if one builds a faulty bridge. By being able to sue we can weed out the crappy engineers and keep our infrastructure sound.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree with you that the government has been extremely inconsistent with what events they decide merit a compensation fund/reparations. I feel the selection of events that they decide need some sort of compensation to the victims is almost entirely a political move. The circumstances that 9/11 brought with it was an enormous public outcry and danger of high stake lawsuits. I do not believe the nation felt as effected by Hurricane Katrina as it did with 9/11. 9/11 was an attack on our country, in our most famed city. Hurricane Katrina was an event that appeared out of the government's control, unlike 9/11.
ReplyDeleteMost citizens that were living in New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina hit did not "choose" to live in a dangerous area. New Orleans is a city with widespread poverty, and there is no way someone can claim that it is the citizen's own fault for living there. The levies conditions should have been maintained by the government. The infrastructure of this country cannot be overlooked by our public officials. Despite how it may appear, preparation for Hurricane Katrina should have been made and could have been controlled by the government.
I agree, Adam, that people should be allowed to sue about the faulty bridge. However, the problem is that a lot of the people affected by the accident don't have enough resources to pay for a lawyer in order to do so. I think that's why there needs to be some sort of fund so that people without those resources to get money for their injuries and losses. I also agree with you about the utilitarian approach that should be taken. I think that these are the types of situations that can be best determined by a utilitarian calculation of sorts.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Danny that 9/11 was felt more than Katrina, but I think a lot of people blame the government for not doing something about it. The government should have, I believe, set up a fund or done much more to pay for the damages from Katrina. As pointed out by Candi, the victims obviously would much rather have their houses and loved ones back than any amount of money, but the government was at least partly at fault, and should try to make up for that as best they can.
Do you think that setting up a compensation fund, presents a commons problem? The case of 9/11, with it set up so many people wanted so much money that the fund thus had to be limited and regulated (like most compensation funds). So by setting up victim compensation funds, they ultimately lead to a tragedy of the commons scenario. Although not everyone can have access to a VCF the monetary aspect is what I am going after. I am not saying they should not be instituted in the first place.
ReplyDelete