Have you ever gotten caught up in a comedy of errors? You make some small ill-advised move that backfires, then, in hastily trying to correct for it, you do something else dumb, which fails and exasperates you, causing another, still dumber correction... until you finally just stop, resigned to accepting your losses, and wishing you had given up long ago?

Sometimes, with a stubborn, determined attitude, we humans can compound a small error into a major catastrophe. Recently, a set of photos was circulating that illustrated so well, and sadly, how we (oh, yeah... it's usually men) can get ensnarled and hoisted on our own petard.

Life can seem unforgiving at times, but seldom so unforgiving as when well-meaning humans attempt to FORCE others into or out of certain behavior. Sure, I'm talking about laws and regulations... the most prevalent example of force in our society. Laws and regulations put RESTRICTIONS on what can happen. They eliminate possibilities. They reduce our choices. In trying to eliminate or control one thing, laws and regulations invariably cause other things to happen. Sir Isaac Newton described it succinctly a long time ago, in his Third Law: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

One of the largest, most disastrous examples in American history was, of course, Prohibition, the results of which were so bad that it resulted in one of the few examples of our government actually reversing itself to minimize harm.

There is an ever-ongoing example of laws and regulations causing other undesirable actions. Can you say "LOOPHOLE"? We've all heard of tax loopholes, usually described as being taken advantage of by wealthy folks, to reap large rewards through specific flaws in the tax code. We've all heard politicians proclaiming that they'll CLOSE some loophole or another.

We should all be aware that "loopholes" weren't usually put in laws or regs on purpose to benefit some cheats, but are the inevitable result of trying to write forceful rules to cover all possible circumstances. It cannot be done. Loopholes are as natural as rust on a Minnesota car, and they too have to be patched, or they'll grow in size and ugliness.

There is a characteristic of loopholes that is particularly ugly; they usually benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor. Loopholes (or any other flaws) are difficult to find and take advantage of, which means that those who can benefit are those with the resources and time to find and exercise them. That usually leaves me and thee out.

The natural downside from laws and regulations, no matter how carefully crafted, is so great that wisdom and common sense dictates that no law or regulation should even be drafted unless absolutely required, and then in the most limited, localized manner possible. Trying to write good FEDERAL law is a virtual impossibility, because of the diversity of the area and population such laws must try to cover.

We have a good example of state (Minnesota) law being proposed. As reported by Conrad Defiebre of the Star Tribune:

Minnesotans would have a fat chance of suing the food industry for making them obese under a proposed "Responsible Food Consumption Act," which came before a state House committee this afternoon. Urdahl's bill, cosponsored by 31 Republicans and three DFLers, would prohibit legal claims against food businesses based on weight gain, obesity or related health problems.

The measure is one of dozens like it introduced throughout the United States at the urging of the National Restaurant Association and other food trade groups. So far, 14 states have enacted them. Federal action is also under consideration in Congress.

All this legislative activity followed the filing of about 10 suits around the nation, the most notably against the McDonald's fast-food chain in New York. None of the plaintiffs has won in court yet and some of the suits have been dismissed, but Urdahl said even defending the litigation piles unfair costs on an industry that employs 12 million people nationwide.

Some of you may abhor the fact that the legislation was pushed by a powerful association, and might benefit other large corporations, "at the expense" of poor citizens who can't control their appetite or their choice of what to eat. I have some sympathy for such people, but damned little. It's their money they're spending, their choice of where to eat, how much to eat, and if they detect undesirable weight gain, they have an easy choice of changing their habits. If they don't, the consequences are for THEM to bear, not for anyone else to suffer. If they can afford to eat out often enough to get fat, they're not short on options. Since I can't, my sympathy for them reduces even further.

Evidently, most of us agree. The StarTrib is also running a poll on the question "Should there be a ban on you-made-me-fat lawsuits?" A resounding 81% are choosing this answer: "Yes. People know some foods are bad for them. Shouldn't they take responsibility if they eat them anyway?"

I agree completely with the sentiment expressed in the answer chosen, but NOT in the choice to BAN the lawsuits. In effect, those 81% are saying, "There oughta be a law"... some of the dumbest words a citizen can say to their government.

The proposed law will take cases out of the courts where they should be decided. It's a substitution of blanket rule for individual case consideration. I can't tell you just what adverse consequences will result from such a law, but there is no doubt in my mind that there will be such unexpected results... that will then have to be fixed by still more legislation, or argued in court cases, defeating the only premise for the legislation... the expense of defending against such suits.

You may have noticed that this law would be to prevent something from happening that hasn't ever happened in Minnesota... and that in the 10 suits elsewhere, none have been successful. So, this bill is in case something might happen. That alone makes it patently stupid legislation.

The REAL problem... the reason such cases can even rear their ugly heads in our courts is that our American legal system, unlike much of the rest of the world, does not require that LOSERS PAY. Our legal system encourages frivolous lawsuits... precisely the kind that require nothing but an aggressive lawyer and a pitiable client. If plaintiffs seeking damages were subject to paying the defense costs when the court finds their case to be without merit, such silly lawsuits would not be filed in the first place.

Absence of "loser pays" invites some to "roll the dice" in court. If they can make the case expensive enough for those being sued to defend themselves, they may well get an out-of-court settlement even when their claims have no merit at all. THAT is a problem that should be addressed. I think it's fair to assume that as long as we keep electing lots of lawyers to our legislatures that the legal system will continue to favor lots of lawsuits.