Veil of ignorance

Legal Doctrine and the Veil of Ignorance
We are all familiar by now with John Rawls’s famous 1971 thought experiment,
whereby persons are encouraged to imagine what they would want the world to be like
if they did not know the circumstances into which they would be born. For purposes of
this assignment, the thought experiment might go like this:
Imagine that you have to adopt a series of rules which, taken together, would
constitute a legal system. As you undertake this task, you have no way of knowing your
social status or family background. It is as if you have not been born yet. You could be
a homeless person, or you could be an immigrant, or you could be immensely
wealthy—you just don’t know. Nor do you know anything about what your personal
capacities might be. You know that the world has to consist of people of many different
tastes and backgrounds, but you have no idea what yours will be. This is what Rawls
calls the Veil of Ignorance. Assuming this Veil of Ignorance, what, if anything, would
you change about any of the rules and conditions that we have confronted so far this
semester? You don’t need to design a whole new legal system, but among the aspects
of the legal system as we have described it since August, what would you change?
For purposes of this assignment, as you range through all the rules, doctrines
and circumstances that we’ve looked into since the beginning of the semester, you
must choose 4 such matters, and explain what you do to change them based on the
Veil of Ignorance. These could be particular rules, or particular procedures, or some
general feature of the system. What exactly would you do to alter these 4 things, and
why? You can abolish something entirely, or you can adjust it in some way. All you
need to do is explain your reasoning, in an informed and persuasive fashion.
Your completed assignments are due by 2:30 PM on Tuesday, November 22.
There is no page limit, but a good estimate as to length would be five double-spaced
pages.
1
1
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/17/1137465465/taylor-swift-ticketmaster-klobuchar-tennessee
https://www.vulture.com/2022/11/taylor-swift-ticket-presale-not-working-ticketmaster-problem.html
1
Introduction……….
I would choose to change the way businesses are formed and how
contracts are made. I would do this by implementing a system where businesses
are only formed if they meet certain requirements, and contracts are only valid if
they are made in good faith. I believe this would help to prevent businesses from
committing crimes and harming other businesses. A very recent example revolving
around this change would be the case of Ticketmaster. The company’s handling of the
release of the tickets for Taylor Swift’s tour led to immense criticism. The sales of the
tickets were canceled due to excessive pre-sales and the company cited this “Due to
extraordinarily high demands on ticketing systems and insufficient remaining ticket
inventory to meet that demand, tomorrow’s public on-sale for Taylor Swift | The Eras
Tour has been canceled.” This has led to the government eyeing its merger with live
nation and how it passed by as an “unchecked monopoly”. This puts Ticketmaster in a
scrutinized position, already accused for abusing its market power at the expense of
customers. There has been almost no real competitor or alternative after their
monopoly. Looking at the larger picture this should not have taken place in the first
place. And so stricter anti-monopoly laws must be set in place when merging or
acquiring companies. His would help promote competition which is very necessary in an
industry. Competition allows companies to continually develop and put customers first
always. Simultaneously, the law must put customers first and act accordingly when
approving mergers and acquisitions. A potential question arises if the government can
2
allow for companies to merge easily, can they also necessitate easier and faster
deregulation? But what about state industries?
Licensing laws affect various industries like telecommunication and
transportation. Many of these industries are also protected by laws in one form or
another. As we know, state industries are often monopolies growing at the expense of
private industries. There is a lot of management disorganization and poor performance
management. But as there is no competition in their respective industries, these
companies were unaffected by fair pricing strategies, radical innovation or even
providing decent products/services. A tweak in the law allows for the gap in the market
to be filled by new innovative companies offering much superior products and services.
This goes hand in hand with allowing more competition to create better products by
prioritizing customers.
Similarly, FTX failed to meet its commitments and was unable to put customers
first. As per the case, customers are being placed last in the list to receive their money
back which already contradicts the whole concept of placing customers first. Moreover,
the customer funds held through the exchange are the most affected as FTX holds the
digital keys to their wallets. This has not only impacted customers but led to a domino
effect leading to the fall of many crypto exchanges like Mt. Gox, Voyager, and Celsius2
and also impacting their customers.
2
(https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/ftx-crash-2022-11)
3
When it comes to business law, there are a variety of different crimes that can
harm businesses. These include things like fraud, embezzlement, and even
racketeering. Looking at taxation, the businesses have generally opposed several laws
and regulations that may impact operations and profitability. Increased regulations and
taxations impose a net cost on society in the long run. But in a law system where the
customer must be prioritized, some return is necessary for the government. This may be
because several for-profit businesses have caused environmental destruction, have
indulged in unfair labor practices and even price-fixing by colluding. A broader view to
the required approach could be that a certain amount of revenue be reinvested for R&D
and the taxes be reduced accordingly. This would contribute to the greater long term
growth of the firm and prioritize customers.
There are also a number of different business torts, which are civil wrongs
committed by businesses. These can include things like negligence, breach of contract,
and even defamation. I would also choose to change the way negligence is handled. I
would do this by making it easier for victims of negligence to sue businesses and hold
them accountable for their actions. I believe this would help to prevent businesses from
harming people and would make them more likely to take safety precautions. Under tort
reform, the damages should not border the actions of the rich. ( tort reform changes
consequences on businesses, customers etc)
4
DRAFT
Possible options – Solution to lengthy or life time prisons.
Expand the number of courts
In terms of dispute resolution, I think that there should be more focus on mediation and
arbitration. I feel that these methods are more effective in resolving disputes than going to
court. They are often faster and cheaper, and they can help to preserve relationships
between parties. I think that this would be a beneficial change, as it would help to reduce
the costs and time associated with resolving disputes.
Tax payer money used ? waste of
facilities ?(https://cccct.law.columbia.edu/content/initiative-just-society)
Is this an almost identical approach ?
We can look forward to the enforcement of more stringent reviews of future policies so
that the playing field between the public and private sectors can be leveled,” he said.
To enable more effective enforcement, the guideline called for the application of more
detailed review standards to target malpractices such as hindering equal and easy
market exits, the offering of subsidies to certain businesses, and carrying out biased
oversight.
The government will refine review methods and encourage market regulators to enforce
the review mechanism together with policymaking departments before new policy
measures are rolled out by local governments, the guideline said.
In any case, we now have entities and regulations to limit the alleged excesses of the
free market. Businesses complain about many of these rules while also lobbying to
have other rules changed in their favor.
5
Sarbanes-Oxle
Putting customers first in most/ all cases ( FTX case)
https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/effect-tort-reform.html
( https://www.americanprogress.org/article/past-time-congress-expand-lower-courts/)_

Recent Developments in Business Torts Litigation 2021

https://hbr.org/1994/05/alternative-dispute-resolution-why-it-doesnt-work-and-why-itdoes
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/11/government-regulations.asp
6