If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
By which I mean, the bedrock consensus of political science appears to have been disproved. Broadly speaking, political scientists believe that lawmakers and regulators only respond to the policy preferences of powerful people. If economic elites want a policy, that's the policy we get – no matter how unpopular it is with everyone else. Likewise, even if something is very, very popular with all of us, we won't get it if the super-rich hate it.
Just take a look at the gap between public opinion and policy outcomes: most people think "capitalism does more harm than good"; most Canadians, Britons and Australians aged 18-34 think "socialism will improve the economy and well-being of citizens"; 72% of Brits support a national job guarantee; the majority of Californians support permanent rent-controls; and most people in 40 countries want CEO salaries capped at 4X that of their lowest-paid employees:
The inability of the public to get its way isn't just an impressionistic view – it's an empirical finding, based on a representative sample of 1,779 policy outcomes, that politicians ignore the will of the people in favor of the will of billionaires:
economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
It's a mystery. There's no policy that would be harder on billionaire wealth and power than vigorous antitrust enforcement (not least because preventing corporate concentration is key to preventing regulatory capture):
Certainly, there are a lot of merely obscenely rich people who are angry that the farcically rich people are screwing them over, and this class division between the 0.01% and the 1% has opened up some political space:
But that wouldn't be enough, not without the massive supermajorities of everyday people who are sick to the back teeth of being abused by corporations, and who are desperate for any outlet to strike back.
Take juries. Orrick is a big corporate law firm that represents the kinds of companies that might find their future in the hands of a jury in a state or federal courthouse. Orrick periodically surveys representative samples of people who show up for jury service to get a picture of their attitude towards the kinds of companies that can afford to hire a firm like theirs:
Their latest report contrasts the results of a pre-pandemic 2019 survey with a 2025 survey of 1,011 jurors in California, Florida, Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Texas, New Jersey, and New York.
They found that jurors' trust in the court system has plummeted since 2019 (67% in 2019, 48% in 2025); hostility to cops has tripled (11% to 33%); anti-corporate sentiment is way up (27% then, 45% now). The percentage of jurors who believe that they should use the courts to "send messages to companies to improve their behavior" has risen from 58% to 62%; and 77% want to award punitive damages to "punish a corporation" (up from 69%).
And jurors are notably hostile to pharma companies, energy companies and large banks, but they especially hate social media companies.
It's no wonder that corporations are so desperate to take away our right to sue them, and why "binding arbitration" clauses that permanently confiscate your legal rights are now part of every corner of modern life:
The business lobby has been trying to take away workers' and customers' and citizens' right to seek justice in court for decades, ginning up urban legends like "A lady's coffee was too hot so McDonald's had to give her $2.7 million":
Don't believe it. The courts are rarely on our side, but the fact that sometimes, every now and again, a jury will seize an opportunity to deliver a smidgen of justice just drives plutocrats nuts. Billionaireism is the belief that you don't owe anything to anyone else, that morality is whatever you can get away with. You don't have to be a billionaire to contract a wicked case of billionaireism – but you do have to be stinking rich to benefit from it:
You have to admit, "the American legal system collapses under the deluge of everyone suing everyone else over every possible topic" is perfectly accurate to the stereotype
It seems a very... Libertarian death by exactly what you asked for.
Understanding Georgia Punitive Damages Limits and Loopholes
GEORGIA PUNITIVE DAMAGES: BEYOND SIMPLE COMPENSATION
Georgia juries can do more than cover hospital bills. When a driver, corporation, or property owner shows reckless indifference, punitive damages step in to punish and deter. They exist only to penalize wrongdoers and warn the wider community.
STATUTORY CAP—AND WHY IT SOMETIMES VANISHES
OCGA § 51-12-5.1 usually limits punitive awards to $250,000. That ceiling dissolves when the defendant acted intentionally, drove drunk, or tampered with a product. In those scenarios jurors may select any figure they believe will sting enough to change future behavior.
MEETING THE HIGHER PROOF STANDARD
Plaintiffs must convince the jury with clear and convincing evidence, a steeper climb than ordinary negligence. Strong claims often highlight:
- Repeated safety violations
- Ignored internal warnings
- Profits placed above public welfare
- Expert testimony on lasting emotional trauma
These facts paint misconduct as a conscious choice, not a mere mistake.
WHY EARLY COUNSEL IS CRITICAL
Building a persuasive story, preserving evidence, and anticipating defense tactics call for seasoned guidance. Quick legal insight helps victims protect leverage while focusing on recovery.
Zurich North America creates new position to address tort reform
Zurich North America creates new position to address tort reform
Zurich North America has announced the appointment of Allen Kirsh (pictured above) as head of claims for judicial and legislative affairs. He will report to Paul Lavelle, chief claims officer for Zurich North America.
In the newly created role, Kirsh will be responsible for developing and implementing a claims-focused strategy to influence the judicial and legislative agendas in key jurisdictions…
