From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: Re: Against Government Regulations
Organization: none
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:29:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.002345.10902@husc3.harvard.edu> koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
>
>In response to Joe Collins attempting to claim that suits cann
>be used to protect us from gov't interference.  Mr. Collins
>said lawyers can take suits on a contigency basis if somweone
>cant afford to sue.

That is one approach of many.

>True but the problem is most of these type of cases are not going to
>be big damages cases that lawyers would make any money off a contigency 
>share.  Damages against a company a consumer protection statute
>is often very little.

A separate problem....the marketplace has not deemed it worth the extra
money yet, i.e. people don't see it as a big problem at this time.
Hence, less reward for lawyers.

>The real point is however, that people DONT KNOW THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS!!

And whose fault is that? It certainly is not the Governments's - I
know many of my legal rights because I have made it my business to know. 
(Psst I am not a lawyer).

I recall my cable TV company was in my house doing some work and then they
spotted what the serviceman thought was too many/illegal cables. He
accused my wife of stealing service. I got him on the phone (I was at
work) and ordered him off my property or I would have him arrested
for trespassing. The cable TV company management later apologized to me and
my wife. 

I recall asking my local elected officials for some information and
they declined to give it to me. I pointed out that under the Freedom
of Information Act, they had no choice but to release the information.
They checked with their attorneys and gave me the information.

My point is that an informed consumer is the best of all scenarios- after all
the consumer has powerful incentives (and powerful rewards) for becoming
and staying informed. And the marketplace should reward those who take the
effort to become more informed and stand up for their rights.

Its not that hard either - just read major newspapers and magazines and
you will be able to distill the information. And these same reading 
materials are available FREE in your local library.

>Why rely on a system that people have to sue to protect their rights
>instead of just outlawing saying intrusive credit investigations
>into your life that report on things that have nothing to do
>with your creditworthiness.  They do that all time.

Who will decide what is intrusive? What makes that person so knowledgeable?
Why them and not someone else? By what measure? 

The government and its bureaucrats had the best of intentions when they imposed
many regulations and all too often they have damaged further that which
they tried to save or help.

Just yesterday, the Gov of NJ said that insurance companies should charge
the same premiums to all auto drivers, ignoring proven data that some
drivers are more risky than others. NJ in the past had hoped to insure
all risky drivers through a State-managed 'Joint Underwriting Association'.
It went Billion$ in the red and NJ drivers had to pay an extra $220 
PER CAR PER YEAR to subsidize bad drivers. NJ has royally screwed up what 
they had hoped to help.

For those who think the present system works, i.e. with welfare and
rent control, etc - go to our major cities and look at the filth, trash
and graffiti. In those same cities is where the same social experiments
are most prevalent, i.e. in NYC, some 1 in 8 is on welfare. Why are so many
paid to be at home when our cities need such desperate help? What is wrong?

Joe
joec@morgan.com
Usual disclaimers....