Torts in communism

[t_wolves_fan]

What happens in a communist society if a collective produces products that harm people? Are they sued? What body enforces the judgement? How do they pay any damages?

Thanks.

[t_wolves_fan]

*sigh*

A tort is a civil suit against a company (producer or service provider) for negligence.

[Lord Testicles]

Why would a collective produce something that harms people on purpose, it's not like they are trying to cut costs.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

people would form into a party.

Like an issue based party.

If one group of individuals thought somthing was wrong, they would petition the workplace and appropriate institutions so they can come to some arrangement.

[Louis Pio]

We kill the one responsible!

Nah seriously quite a strange question, obviously it should be investigated and some kind of action taken.
But difference from our present society is we wouldn't see anybody knowingly pushing such a product through just for the sake of the "holy profit".
For example today alot of scientific research on the dangers of this and that are repressed, wouldn't happen when all results are availible to all.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:03 pm
*sigh*

A tort is a civil suit against a company (producer or service provider) for negligence.
I love the way you had to add that in. Getting impatient waiting for somebody to ask?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by RedStar1916+January 18, 2007 08:21 pm--> (RedStar1916 @ January 18, 2007 08:21 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 08:03 pm
*sigh*

A tort is a civil suit against a company (producer or service provider) for negligence.
I love the way you had to add that in. Getting impatient waiting for somebody to ask? [/b]
It was a safe assumption that upon seeing the word "tort" most people here thought of a tasty dessert.

"Why would they purposefully produce something harmful" doesn't get to the heart of the issue, because not all torts are due to purposeful negligence: it can be accidental as well.

So what if the industrial collective uses a material it thinks is safe only to realize it causes cancer? What remedy do the victims receive, if any?

It is also quite a leap of faith to make the assumption that all collectives of workers will be benevolent at all times, don't you think?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Oh I didn't really intend to get into an argument, I just saw you acting like a child and decided to flame you.

At a glance though, I would suggest that safety checks be implemented to ensure the safety and quality of produce, thereby preventing such incidents. Of course this would fail to prevent intentional wrongdoing, which would be dealt with through a court of law, the guilty party receiving either community service for minor offenses, or jail time for major offenses. The state or collective would probably have to pay the damages, possibly using the assets seized from the guilty party in the event of a serious crime.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 09:45 pm
So what if the industrial collective uses a material it thinks is safe only to realize it causes cancer? What remedy do the victims receive, if any?
With this question we are assuming that we have reached communism and everything has worked out fine, yes?

So if an industrial collective uses a material it thinks is safe only to realize it causes cancer, what could the victims possibly receive? Money isn't a problem, they already have access to what they want, and they have healthcare. What else could they have?

All we could do is make sure that the material isn’t used again.

[wtfm8lol]

With this question we are assuming that we have reached communism and everything has worked out fine, yes?

Yes, if your imagination can handle that :P

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Skinz+January 18, 2007 09:00 pm--> (Skinz @ January 18, 2007 09:00 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 09:45 pm
So what if the industrial collective uses a material it thinks is safe only to realize it causes cancer? What remedy do the victims receive, if any?
With this question we are assuming that we have reached communism and everything has worked out fine, yes?

So if an industrial collective uses a material it thinks is safe only to realize it causes cancer, what could the victims possibly receive? Money isn't a problem, they already have access to what they want, and they have healthcare. What else could they have?

All we could do is make sure that the material isn’t used again. [/b]
Fair enough.

[cormacobear]

This is clearly a concern in council communism or Anarchism where production and controls are regionalized. However in a more national or international Socialist system similair checks, only greatly expanded, as are now in place to study all products sufficiently before use, and to study Health trends to discover any malfeisance will work to prevent.

Any health or quality of life issues will be easily discovered by there do to the nesessity of constant involve ment in a communistic democratic system. Where by those individuals would receive the best care it's society could provide not the best care there pocket book could provide. Compensation isn't an issue where care is guaranteed, where the malfeisance is intentional it becomes a criminal matter and justice is the issue not compensation to injured parties.

[KC]

What happens in a communist society if a collective produces products that harm people?

Whatever people want to happen.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Zampanò@January 23, 2007 11:24 am

What happens in a communist society if a collective produces products that harm people?

Whatever people want to happen.
uh oh....

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Yeah I have to agree with colonelguppy on that, replacing the rule of law with "whatever people want" is a recipe for chaos.

[gilhyle]

A few points:

You are assuming in a communist society anything new ever gets produced - there has to be a serious possibility that in a Communist society all research and innovation will stagnate.

However, if that proves false, it is worth noting that even in capitalism the culture of suing and court adjudicated compensation is most common in common law jurisdictions where sociaal welfare regimes limit benefits and least common in those societies where social welfare responds more to need. (Torts can apply to individuals as well as companies)

Generalising this observation, we can note that courts (supposedly) award compensation to compensate for loss. If that loss is fully compensated by society in any case, there would be no basis for suing someone - except the search for exemplary damages, a response better developed in the US than elsewhere. The attraction of exemplary damages arises from the ineffectiveness of regulatory regimes.

Now, under communism, the 'adminstration of things' is supposed to reach a height of effectiveness which should minimise the occurence of such events (a point made by others) and which should also be able to correct administrative procedures effectively to prevent an easy recurrence of such events: thats what communism is - effective and dispassionate collectiv administration.

Thus communism should not only involve the withering away of religion, of class, of the state....but also of the courts.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:44 am
This is clearly a concern in council communism or Anarchism where production and controls are regionalized. However in a more national or international Socialist system similair checks, only greatly expanded, as are now in place to study all products sufficiently before use, and to study Health trends to discover any malfeisance will work to prevent.

Any health or quality of life issues will be easily discovered by there do to the nesessity of constant involve ment in a communistic democratic system. Where by those individuals would receive the best care it's society could provide not the best care there pocket book could provide. Compensation isn't an issue where care is guaranteed, where the malfeisance is intentional it becomes a criminal matter and justice is the issue not compensation to injured parties.
What of health problems caused by products originally thought safe? How many years were people working asbestos before its cancer causing properties became apparent? I do not see how potential health issues are going to be easier to discern in a socialist society than in in a capitalist one.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:45 pm
It is also quite a leap of faith to make the assumption that all collectives of workers will be benevolent at all times, don't you think?
Not really, why would they hurt themselves? They are part of the community, they arnt' working for Profit, they are working for their community, the only way this would happen is if a bunch of workers, all of them in a firm, decided to be completely dicks, and collectively hurt everyone else, just for the sake of hurting them.


You are assuming in a communist society anything new ever gets produced - there has to be a serious possibility that in a Communist society all research and innovation will stagnate.

I really doubt that, I don't think research and innovation will end, people don't invent only for profit, hell most of the people who do research and innovation don't end up with the profits form their work.

If people are hurt accidently by a collective within a community, the community as a whole will help them out, and their families, not an issue really.

[KC]

Yeah I have to agree with colonelguppy on that, replacing the rule of law with "whatever people want" is a recipe for chaos.

Law is made by people. Therefore, what happens is whatever people want to happen. The whole point is that these "what will this be like in communist society?" questions are incredibly pointless, and incredibly stupid, because they're all just meaningless speculation.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Zampanò@January 23, 2007 11:23 pm

Yeah I have to agree with colonelguppy on that, replacing the rule of law with "whatever people want" is a recipe for chaos.

Law is made by people. Therefore, what happens is whatever people want to happen. The whole point is that these "what will this be like in communist society?" questions are incredibly pointless, and incredibly stupid, because they're all just meaningless speculation.
It is indeed speculation. But you are the folks who insist that "it" will work. Sort of need to show how "it" will.

[KC]

It is indeed speculation. But you are the folks who insist that "it" will work. Sort of need to show how "it" will.

Do you think supplying a sufficient explanation to the question presented in this thread has any relevance to how it actually will work?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Zampanò@January 24, 2007 10:12 am

It is indeed speculation. But you are the folks who insist that "it" will work. Sort of need to show how "it" will.

Do you think supplying a sufficient explanation to the question presented in this thread has any relevance to how it actually will work?
Hoew torts will work? Somebody already answered- the concept won't exist.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Law is made by people. Therefore, what happens is whatever people want to happen. The whole point is that these "what will this be like in communist society?" questions are incredibly pointless, and incredibly stupid, because they're all just meaningless speculation.
Law is what is written into a constitution, which generally speaking must be ratified by the people. The whole reason it exists is to prevent certain individuals from acting against the will of said people. There could be myriad reasons for this, including psychological disorder or grievance. In these cases it is up to a pre-established, clearly defined law to retain order and enforce the will of the socially conscious members of society.

That said, I agree that all these "what will x be like in communism" questions are retarded, because the revolution hasn't occurred yet, no one man can define a future society in such detail, and of course there must still be a radical shift in social attitudes before any revolution can take place.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:30 pm
It is indeed speculation. But you are the folks who insist that "it" will work. Sort of need to show how "it" will.
Every system works, they just achieve different things. How it will work, is that the people involved will decide collectively how it will work, thats like asking, "Under a Democracy, what will the law on so-and-so be" You can't give an answer to that because its a freaking Democracy.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 04:27 pm

That said, I agree that all these "what will x be like in communism" questions are retarded, because the revolution hasn't occurred yet, no one man can define a future society in such detail, and of course there must still be a radical shift in social attitudes before any revolution can take place.
Kind of an ironic statement when I see so many posts claiming that communism can be objectively proven, logically.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Kind of an ironic statement when I see so many posts claiming that communism can be objectively proven, logically.
How can you "prove communism"? Communism is not an assertion.

[KC]

Kind of an ironic statement when I see so many posts claiming that communism can be objectively proven, logically.

The only people that claim that are idiots and they're wrong.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Zampanò@January 24, 2007 05:10 pm

Kind of an ironic statement when I see so many posts claiming that communism can be objectively proven, logically.

The only people that claim that are idiots and they're wrong.
I dont know what it would mean to 'prove' communism 'logically' and I doubt its been claimed too often on this board of well educated, measured, reasonable people.:D