Reply #55: How very astute!

[MaraJade]

"Ownership" sounds, on the surface, like a very good thing. After all, human nature is to desire
ownership over hire. We all want something of our very own. And so, the repukes have coined the
"ownership society" phrase to play on that want. But we all must be careful to read between the lines
on this one.

In a repuke "ownership society," people own not only assets, but liabilities; in particular liabilities that do not actually belong to them and over which they have no control. In their version of the "ownership society," it is acceptable for wealthy people or corporations to use the law to assign or even force others to assume ownership responsibility over risks that are not theirs.

The ranting and raving about "tort reform" is a very good example of this. Of course, reasonable people want to see an end to frivolous suits that waste public money. But reasonable people also want to see bad doctors and irresponsible businesses called to account. Both sides must be addressed to achieve true tort reform. But repukes have a "blame the victim" mentality. Contributors to the repuke party are somehow immune to the harm that they have caused others. I have never heard one single repuke call for physicians to police their own ranks and remove the nutters who are mutilating people. Rather, repukes truly believe that mutilation is a "risk" sick people chose when they sought medical help. You "own" the consequences of seeking any medical help. It isn't the careless doctor's fault that you suffered injury; it is your fault for "risking" the surgery. It is the same with consumer products; the corporation that manufactured the faulty drug or device isn't at fault--you took the "risk" of using the device or taking the drug, and so you are responsible for the consequences.

In life, we all take risks, but to be fair, we must be able to completely calculate the risks for ourselves.