But my only point for current purposes is that when outfits like the _New York Times_ repeatedly proclaim re-enfranchising felons a fundamental element of democracy, you can rest assured they’ve done the math and discovered that felons are overwhelmingly Democrats (as indeed they are).

Likewise, I am not here debating (directly) the merits of school choice, but you can be assured teachers unions don’t oppose it due to their careful, considered conclusions that it will lower test scores. Just pointing out self-interested venality rather than bad policy for current purposes.

Did I really just see a libertarian endorse felon-disenfranchisement laws? Remember: it’s the state that defines “felony,” and those convicted of violating the state’s laws are a natural constituency for opponents to those laws.

If you think either that states are likely to be hamfisted enough to create massive categories of unjust and destructive felony laws such as, oh, I don’t know, maybe drug laws; or that states are likely to be power-hungry enough to opportunistically manipulate the criminal code in order to disenfranchise potential opponents, then I can’t see how you can support felon disenfranchisement on libertarian premises. I understand the impulse to say “thieves and murderers have cast themselves out of civil society,” but that’s not the available category, and it will be state institutions that decide who should be moved into the disenfranchised category.

My Magnapop and Epoxies channels also seem to work out well. Bowie, by contrast, keeps giving me stuff like 38 Special.

But if Pandora faces RIAA in court, perhaps they should simply appeal for understanding by asking, “Is this the value of our existence? Should we proclaim with such persistence?”

If we end up losing Pandora, online stations like DevilsNight, _and_ outdoor Fixx concerts in Newton, MA all in the same summer, though, I will be seriously bumming.

In similarly grim news, Fox (based on older, partial film rights to the property) is suing to prevent the release of Warner’s _Watchmen_ movie. Worst-case scenario, I’m sure they’d just get a cut of the money, but if they actually prevented or even seriously delayed the release, I think you might even see enough fan anger to lead to, say, boycotts of Alien and Star Wars releases. I know I’d be pissed.

of course, one (todd?) might argue that the fixx are related to everything.

You’d still skew things more in the direction of people seeking litigation _when they think they can win_ instead of simply when the activity of litigating works to their advantage, which is what you want.

On balance, you still want to encourage winners to go to court and discourage losers, with all other concerns (save to the extent one claims to be able to spot just outcomes in a way that somehow transcends/avoids going through the process itself) secondary, I’d say.

(And let us not be cowed into thinking that going to court is itself a positive or even break-even experience, absent loser pays — the fewer people with bad arguments eating up court time and expense, the better, all else being equal — not that Jacob says anything to contradict that, but I just know there are probably lawyers reading this some of whom are thinking, in effect, “Why not just go to court over everything all the time?”)

Finally, I’m all for competition between potential venues/systems in this area, though, if I can plead the David Friedman escape clause — and if the Democrats do not succeed in their terrifying current push to abolish private arbitration, which is right up there with fighting against school choice and encouraging felons to vote in the Sometimes They Really Are Just Knowingly Sinister and Eager to Protect Their Racket department.

If I’m a relatively poor plaintiff suing a relatively rich defendant in a case that has an 85% chance of success, for a million dollars:

1) If I have a contingency-fee lawyer and loser doesn’t pay, I bring the suit.

2) If I have a non-contingency-fee lawyer and loser doesn’t pay, I almost certainly bring the sit, because I’ll have hired a lawyer whose expected total fees are less than $850,000.

3) If loser pays, though, there’s a 15% chance of incurring costs that are under the other party’s control and that can rise arbitrarily high– probably bankrupt-the-plaintiff level high. If the defendant is willing and able to spend $6 million in defense fees (and it may well be willing to do so if it gets sued frequently enough) then the 15% chance of having to pay those fees is greater than the 85% chance of winning. If there’s diminishing marginal value of money– to the person with $100,000 it’s a lot more important to avoid falling to 0 than it is to rise to $200,000– then the break-even point will be appropriately lower.

Even highly meritorious cases aren’t 100% guaranteed. And the small-percentage chance of paying legal fees that the other side can strategically allow to rise acts as a deterrent to even very meritorious claims brought by plaintiffs who are less able to take the hit.

Contrary to what you say, a rich defendant *can’t* now spend the plaintiff into the ground in the same way– if the plaintiff’s attorney isn’t working on contingency, then the plaintiff simply sets a budget constraint.

Loser pays has some merit– but it’s hardly perfect, and if what you’re really agitated about is tort law judgments, then it’s a weird tool and one that risks all kinds of unintended consequences for contract law, property law, family law, etc. (Tort is not the backbone of the legal system, and you shouldn’t put that cart before the important horses.) Better to focus on tort law reform directly– including reforms of choice of jurisdiction and of civil juries.

(Jenny asked about various suits against the government including suits about unconstitutionality. It’s natural enough to say that loser pays governs suits at law not at equity– if there’s no money changing hands anyway, then no money changes hands to pay the other side’s lawyers.)

no, but a reaction to ask, “what’s the incidence of people skipping out on bills at restaurants in the first place?” is a good thing - especially if you’re using the assertion that “people are less likely to skip out on the bill at restaurants” as support for some sort of restaurant-based rule reform.

You will keep me dreaming of a better world, though.

Again, loser pays rewards merit and punishes error, and there’s something awry if we react to that by asking for stats on how it will affect different income levels in the first place, isn’t there?

If someone says “people are less likely to skip out on the bill at restaurants these days,” I hope our reaction wouldn’t be to say, “Well, let me check the demographics on check-skippers before I tell you whether that’s good news.” But then, I’m no leftist or egalitarian — and we all know where egalitarianism leads (thanks to moviemakers like Thor Halvorssen and Elizabeth Koch):

http://FinallyEqual.com