I discern a number of points of argumentation on this subject that I think would be good to break out in discrete posts and indicate both my anti-plaintiffs' lawyers view and where I think the plaintiffs' lawyers stand.
Stated from my perspective, these loosely include:
1. There is no free lunch and all payments ultimately come out of the pockets of human individuals.
2. The law needs to differentiate among intentional wrongdoing, negligence and innocent conduct that is neither wrongful nor negligent.
3. It is the role of democratically elected legislatures to decide matters of public policy and to enact laws of general application that implement or reflect the policy decisions. It is the role of the courts to apply those laws to resolve particular disputes between particular parties.
4. Plaintiffs' lawyers have a one sided financial interest and bias; individual citizens have interests on both sides of the debate.