Fear Factories
A compassionate conservative viewpoint on ethical treatment of animals, from a former Bush administration insider. http://www.cok.net/files/scully050523.pdf
Wayne Pacelle on the Future of the Animal-Protection Movement
"We are now at a new and strange juncture in human experience. Never has there been such massive exploitation of animals—from the puppy mills to the canned hunting ranches to the laboratories to the billions of animals raised on factory farms. At the same time, never have there been so many people determined to stop this exploitation. One force or the other has to prevail, and it is the goal of the animal protection movement to see the forces of kindness and mercy triumph over custom, complaisance, and selfishness, and to usher in a new era of respect and concern for animals.
The means of effecting these sweeping changes take many forms. There is enlightenment and education, and the personal transformation that occurs when people of conscience become aware of abuse and misconduct. There is direct care and relief, and the humane movement has spent the bulk of its resources during the last century and a half providing shelter, sanctuary, food and water, and other animal care services to creatures in need.
In a market-oriented economy—in which many animals are treated only as commodities—the humane movement must influence corporate practices and policies. We vote for or against animal cruelty with our dollars in the marketplace, and our ability to spur corporate policy changes has enormous implications for animals. When major corporations halted animal testing, or when fast food giants stipulated that producers had to observe basic welfare standards, these decisions affected the lives of millions of creatures.
And then there is the matter of the law. When it comes to animals, the law must speak, and set a standard in society for personal, corporate, and government conduct. Matters dealing with the treatment of animals cannot be left entirely to personal choice or conscience, since many people would knowingly flout society’s voluntary proscriptions. As elsewhere in the law, people must be held to clear standards of conduct, and those standards must be enforceable.
(Wayne Pacelle, “Law and Public Policy: Future Directions for the Animal Protection Movement,” Animal Law 11 [2005]: 1-6, at 1-2)
"Frivolous" lawsuits (?)
The frivolous case for tort law change
Opponents of the legal system exaggerate its costs, ignore its benefits
by Lawrence Chimerine and Ross Eisenbrey
...This paper examines the major problems with [the] estimate of tort costs and challenges the assertions on the economic effects of the tort system ... and, in turn, [assertions] by the Council of Economic Advisers. It finds that CEA has presented no evidence that the tort system can properly be blamed for excessive liability insurance premiums, reduced wages or employment, lower corporate profits or productivity, reduced research and development, or a failure to introduce new products. Most important, it concludes that the tort law changes advocated by the president will not have any substantial positive effect on national employment, research and development, productivity, or job creation.
...
V. Conclusion
The economic case made by critics for changing the U.S. tort law system can only be called frivolous. They have claimed that there is a tort liability "crisis," when the facts show that the number of tort cases has declined steadily for years. They have grossly exaggerated the costs of the tort system, and have made unfounded claims about the tort system's impact on insurance premiums, corporate research and development funding, product innovation, productivity, wages and employment, and business profits. And they have claimed without any evidence whatsoever that changing the tort system will stimulate economic growth and produce jobs.
These economic claims have gone largely unchallenged despite the failure of the tort system's critics to substantiate them with credible evidence. With respect to job creation in particular, significant tort law change would be more likely to slow employment growth than to promote it. Endlessly repeating that so-called "tort reform" will create jobs does not make it true.
A one-sided focus on the costs of the tort system that excludes an examination of the potential effects of changes on the system's benefits is inherently dangerous. Professor Marc Galanter of the University of Wisconsin, a leading nonpartisan academic observer of the U.S. tort system, points out that changes to the U.S. tort liability system, even if undertaken for legitimate reasons, have the potential to reduce the rights of tort victims, leaving injured individuals, their families, and, ultimately, the taxpayers to cover losses that should be compensated by those who cause them. Galanter (1996) writes, "that it costs so much to effectuate [transfers of compensation from tortfeasor to victim] calls for remedy, but controlling these transaction costs should not be confounded with reducing the rights of claimants. Indeed, the potential exists to have the worst of both worlds by reducing the rights of the injured without significantly reducing the transaction costs of the system."
Economic Policy Institute -May 2005
