"There's a view that common law, torts, and capitalism would all work if only all the costs were on the books."
Really, really, no, as regards tort law. But that's going to require a post on its own, I think. (Short form: the historical constraints on tort law are such as to make "work" a concept so splintered and nebulous as to be meaningless. I have lots of memories of first year torts and going "this makes historical but no conceptual sense", and I had Makuch rather than Weinrib so there was no argument about principles at any meaningful level in class.)
As another side observation: this morning's Star article indicates that the immediate problem is both worse and better than it might appear. Better, because the problems do not seem to spring from Ford's personal distaste for following the recommendations of his advisors. But the same characteristics which make him willing to be "flexible" (aka "blown about on every wind of vain doctrine" or "being a populist") -- his reactions to the reactions of other people meant that he wasn't willing to push things through against cabinet opposition. Worse, because the opposition to effective measures is widespread through the rural part of the Conservative cabinet (never mind caucus) and the cabinet (and Ford) were unwilling to move forward on measures which they did not unanimously support; and widespread resistance is worse than the foibles of one person. (This may also explain why it's taking the government so long to go from announcing that they will be doing "something" on sick leave to actually announcing a structure for it (you can do that before the details are drafted): it's probably treading on too many cabinet members' corns.)
no subject
Really, really, no, as regards tort law. But that's going to require a post on its own, I think. (Short form: the historical constraints on tort law are such as to make "work" a concept so splintered and nebulous as to be meaningless. I have lots of memories of first year torts and going "this makes historical but no conceptual sense", and I had Makuch rather than Weinrib so there was no argument about principles at any meaningful level in class.)
As another side observation: this morning's Star article indicates that the immediate problem is both worse and better than it might appear. Better, because the problems do not seem to spring from Ford's personal distaste for following the recommendations of his advisors. But the same characteristics which make him willing to be "flexible" (aka "blown about on every wind of vain doctrine" or "being a populist") -- his reactions to the reactions of other people meant that he wasn't willing to push things through against cabinet opposition. Worse, because the opposition to effective measures is widespread through the rural part of the Conservative cabinet (never mind caucus) and the cabinet (and Ford) were unwilling to move forward on measures which they did not unanimously support; and widespread resistance is worse than the foibles of one person. (This may also explain why it's taking the government so long to go from announcing that they will be doing "something" on sick leave to actually announcing a structure for it (you can do that before the details are drafted): it's probably treading on too many cabinet members' corns.)