So her argument against Chloe would seem to survive, even characterizing this as a property right. If you miss law school, will take you back through some of the best and some worst features of law school. So, I hire you to paint my portrait. Leo Katz: Now, before I do that, I just want to briefly allude to this point you made. And yet, I think we all intuitively balk at enforcing it. Any patient may have the right to refuse treatment, but without him nobody gets surgery. He will not be allowed to cede his rights to Chloe.
And even as a matter of morality, I think we actually feel a bit askance--we feel uneasy about it. We should only wish that Professor Katz's book were titled Explaining Why the Law Is Not So Perverse. So, it's a big deal who gets treated first; and if I told you nothing more, then it's kind of obvious that both law and morality would dictate that the only doctor who happens to be on duty would immediately devote all of his attention to Al, the more seriously injured. Russ Roberts: 'Yeah, I don't like the club any more,' says that person. It was often a way for poor people in Europe to emigrate to the American colonies: they signed an indenture in return for a passage. And they have preferences between the three candidates.
Why would we not allow such things? This Essay discusses how mindfulness about mindfulness can help facilitate the positive transformation of law students, personally and professionally. So it's not-- Russ Roberts: I'm in the Kidney Club, so if I lose that kidney I can get another one. And you can't have me punished or thrown in jail for not honoring this promissory right that you've got. Any decision among the injured parties will then make a claim on him, and in your example would then force him to perform. But unlike slaves, servants were guaranteed to be eventually released from bondage.
Katz's lucid explanations and apt examples show why they resist any easy resolutions. I think Carl B is right on with pointing out the property right belongs to the doctor. Voting theorists who underline the absurdity of the situation say this is almost like somebody going into a restaurant and he's choosing between chicken and steak; and he chooses the steak; and then he's informed that there's also fish on the menu, and then he says, 'Well, now I'm going to have the chicken instead. The buck, it seems, just stops with God. Free wage labor was the more prevalent for Europeans in the colonies. I put on my front door: 'Warning! That's what I'm going to do.
First, why does the law spurn? And yet they came to be regarded as repugnant: We can't have indentured servitude now. Well, what the book does is to link up these paradoxes of social choice theory, these perversities of social choice theories with the perversities of the law. And it therefore stands to reason that we're going to run into some very similar sorts of problems--in particular cycling when we are making what people often call multicriterial decisions--decisions based on a multiplicity of criteria. I think most of us, specially the brown and black ones, are certainly grateful that the law has evolved since then. I really don't have time to paint this right now. But then, Bea appears and Bea is about to lose one of her legs.
Several instances of kidnapping for transportation to the Americas are recorded. It should either be cutting allowed or no cutting allowed. And each of them has a very distinct set of preferences with regard to the three candidates. We're trying to ask the authorities, like the doctor, to treat a lesser interest that we happen to care about a lot as though it were a greater interest. After thinking about the situation for a while or indeed rather quickly, people working on this recognized that this isn't just a problem about voting, but there are many other situations in which we do something analogous to voting even though there are not several voters involved. Finally, and perhaps most notably, this is a great book for an upper level seminar.
And the connection is kind of interesting, and I think illuminating. And I think that pressure exists in a lot of other examples that are not transparently like the triage example, but that have sufficient similarity with it. Go ahead, sue me for the tort defending you. Fourth, the law under-criminalizes or otherwise under-condemns conduct properly worth condemnation. It therefore comes as a delightful surprise that in Why the Law is So Perverse, Katz aims not just to identify puzzles but to solve them as well, specifically, to cut the Gordian knot of legal perversities. The reason Al wants to gift his property in order of treatment to C is that there is a personal and partial attachment. And, you know, the famous economist Kenneth Arrow made a startling demonstration that that's impossible.
Well, is that what should happen? Katz asserts that these perversions arise out of a cluster of logical difficulties related to multicriterial decision making. But then there's another difficulty that's maybe more fundamental: it's one thing to say, 'Well, it's pointless to try to specifically enforce it because it's too hard to ensure that somebody does a good job. That even people who feel strongly committed to freedom of contract on some of these examples, especially this one, without quite being able to explain why, think they are not quite willing to live up to their abstract commitment. But let's make it more extreme: Suppose he wants to alienate his right to treatment for, you know, playing chess with the doctor instead during that time. For me, the book was like stepping back into law school and analyzing choices and consequences of actions in the context of legal decision making. Most of this discussion played on my own leitmotif: that when making comparisons you must transform all the multi-dimensional complexities of the things being compared into one dimension, an axis running from worst to best.