When is there too much bureacratic ass covering?

Red tape and preventing people from harm is largely a no-go in my book. People learn from harm, and even if they get killed it’s just one less person to drain natural resources. Red tape just slows things down, and slowing things down, as it applies to this situation, is generally just bad. What’s the point of that, other than the aforementioned preventing harm? Maybe there is some point to it other than that. I don’t claim to be an expert on this. All I know is in my experience, the “bureacratic ass covering” has done nothing but frustrate and impede.

I’d like to see you say that after it’s your butt being sued for ten million dollars after somebody gets killed on your watch.

I don’t think it’s choosing not to risk anybody get to hurt, but more choosing not to get sued by anybody that got hurt.

Anytime it keeps good or useful things from happening, there is too much red tape.

We are in a catch-22 situation ourselves. My son has used up his insurance benefits for the year and so cannot go to the acute care psych hospital again until new the fiscal year starts. However, because he has insurance he isn’t eligible for help from MHMR. In addition, unless he is an active danger to himself or others and is breaking a law while being so, he cannot be arrested and so does not have access to state-run facilities that way. We don’t have $14,000 a month for a private facility.

So instead, let’s sit around and do paperwork or relinquish our parental rights to the state (more paperwork).

lefteh: Why would that happen? I’m not a corporation. Since I’m never going to be a corporation, and I’m inherently selfish, it’s irrelevant to me.

If the situations that others are in are irrelevant to you, then yes, I suppose this would be irrelevant to you. As would the World AIDS Day header up there ^
(assuming you’re not afflicted with the syndrome)

Pretty much. Excluding the header part, because now it’s pink and I liked it better green. But it’s a minor thing and will be down in a day probably, so I don’t care much.

It’s there to raise awareness for the global epidemic of AIDS, and to pay respects to those that have died as a result of it.

I know that. I just don’t really care.

It’s amazing how quickly and thoroughly TheKitchenSink is managing to alienate the Fluther community.

I don’t mean to ;(

but you said thought you didn’t care.

About alienating the Fluther community? I said nothing about that, and furthermore, if I didn’t care, could I have meant to? That doesn’t make any sense.

oops.. I typed that fast between calls at work. I meant to say: I thought you said you didn’t care.

Look, TKS is being honest about a narrow view of his own self-interest. I am unsure about whether he knows that a lot of people find that kind of view a bit alienating.

However, whether or not that is the case, I think it’s important that we listen to and try to understand voices like his. A lot of people in the world share that point of view.

While, I don’t share his view, I do have a related problem. I think that selfishness drives all human behavior, even so-called ‘altruistic’ behavior. I get a lot of shit for that point of view.

Thank you daloon. :)

It’s nice to see that somebody doesn’t just attack my opinion, when I don’t recall attacking anyone else’s…I do realize it alienates people, but if anything, that weeds out people who are intolerant of other’s beliefs, even if it seems silly or wrong to them.

And I agree with you latter point. Like, donating to charity? It’s to make yourself feel better. I probably shouldn’t have said I agreed though, because I’ve apparently demonstrated that I have bad judgement, and so by extension your view might also be deemed as wrong by association…

Sorry. It’s hard for me to “listen to and try to understand” someone who simply doesn’t care about positions or situations that others are in.

In a big picture kind of way I understand Daloon’s point. By ‘listening’, we are learning. It’s a good thing to learn about points of view we find distasteful. Particularly if we hope to have any chance to change it.

To the original question: I see why there is a need for ass covering, but I think it could be streamlined very easily, with a broad disclaimer signed by every student, every year. Basically along the lines of ‘Going to college may require activities that are dangerous. There. Now you can’t sue us.”

The problem is that no matter what people sign, anyone can file suit against anyone else for almost any reason. Then it is up to the judge to decide if it is a valid suit or a frivolous one based on the paperwork submitted.

Some organizations take the view that any suit is a bad suit and so do all the red tape they can think of to avoid even the whisper of a suit.

Other organizations take a different approach. They figure it costs more in the short term but in the long term folks will think twice before filing suit. That is they fight every suit, no matter how small, full on with a complete roster of attorneys. They can afford the court costs and attorneys learn very quickly which cases are silly to file. The end result is folks don’t sue.

And then there is the military way of figuring out creative ways around red tape. For example, one time we were required to fax something from one office to another in the same building. However the second office had no fax machine. So, to satisfy regulations and cover all hind quarters, we took the paper to the second office beeping loudly and saying “incoming fax” as we went down the hall. Everyone laughed and the best part was there was no more stonewalling.

@lefteh: Why not? It seems that’s exactly the kind of behavior your frown upon, not “trying to listen/understand.” Doing that yourself seems a tad hypocritical to me.

Also, I think I listen and understand for the most part, I just usually don’t care. At least I don’t completely disregard the other person and at the same time attack them for their beliefs. Again, I don’t care. That can be a good thing. In some cases, it can be the same thing as “I don’t mind.” Namely, I don’t mind that you so vehemently disagree. I’ve come to expect this anyway. You apparently do care, negatively, so you denigrate my views. A perk of apathy is neutrality.

@TKS – in reference to your comment that you aren’t a corporation and so don’t need to care: anyone can be sued for any reason. Do you own a car? Someone could sue you over hitting something with it. Do you have a pet? Someone could sue you because it bites, makes noise, or affects their allergies. Do you own a house? Someone could sue you because they slip on your front walk or because you painted it the wrong color and thus lowered their property values.

You aren’t the only person who is inherently selfish. The problem comes when you run across someone who is inherently selfish and greedy at the same time.

Not for nearly that amount of money. He said ten million dollars. Make no mistake though, I would care if I were being sued. Just, there’s no bureaucratic ass covering there, so it would have been somewhat off-topic.

I know I’m not the only inherently selfish person (just about everyone is, IMO). Most people aren’t as open about it, though. Or are in denial. Or just really believe they aren’t, but are. Or actually aren’t but that’s a good one in a million.

off topic, but I think selfishness is good because, among other things, it brings us cooperation and socalled “altruistic” behavior.

@TKS – My husband used to work in the court system, and yes, 10 million dollars is quite possible for suit against an individual. He saw cases like that in his court not often, but they occurred. One that comes to mind was a driver who caused an accident that turned his passenger into a paraplegic. The passenger sued the driver for $25 million to cover lifetime medical and pain and suffering. It doesn’t mean that’s what they would end up with, but folks sue for those amounts all the time.

And actually selfishness is built into any species that survives without going extinct right off the bat. In order to have offspring you need to be selfish about a lot of things, including getting enough resources (food, shelter and so on). Non-productive selfishness is when someone amasses more than they would ever conceivably need in order to survive well.

TKS: as Darwin said, cases that large do happen. Here in Franklin County Ohio, they actually occur quite often. Last year, the city got sued for 50 million when a young girl was electrocuted while walking across a bridge. The girl’s family won.

@Darwin: Was an individual ever successfully sentenced to pay that amount? I honestly don’t know. If so I stand corrected.
@lefteh: That’s still the city, not an individual. I was saying “corporation” before because it was the subject at hand. I really meant more like “not an individual.” Also saying I’m “not not an individual” would be a double-negative >_>

I guess the confusion arises with me not specifying that my initial statement was based on the hypothetical situation of you being a leader of a corporation or other entity that is sued because for neglect. My bad. I thought it was implied.

It was implied, which is why I said that hypothetical would never happen because I’m not a corporation or other entity, so it’s a moot point to me, and here we are again, full circle.

@TKS – the suit I mentioned ended up at $10 million for medical costs. Pain and suffering were excluded.

It costs that much? Damn. Well I stand corrected indeed then. It is indeed relevant, albeit very much rare. If it did happen to me, then I would care, and if it didn’t, I wouldn’t. That’s about it.