|
|
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) You say "no", but you mean "yes". The state issued license in the example I gave did not prevent this driver from driving. Your assertion just proves my point, licenses do not prevent unsafe driving. (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) Why? Isn't the beloved Constitution of the United States of America, plus ammendments, a compilation of general regulations? And isn't your freedom to criticize regulations DUE to regulations? :-) (...) Ok, what would you complement that (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) (snipped) (...) And what if you *don't* have a choice? (again, removed loc.pt) Pedro (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) Road and rail should each be cut from subsidy. Chris (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) Please state all the changes that WOULD make it safer. I don't think you're going to convince me that it would be safer without requiring licenses, even with the threat of lawsuits left and right. There are already too many people driving (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) No. The sense of the driver will. If he has lost sense, then he is likely to have lost the ability to drive as well. But two things can further complicate this: Not that many people reach that age, and I know someone who is 80 and keeps (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
| (...) I would *not* want to pay. He should pay for his own incarceration to the maximum extent possible, but when he cannot we must pay to keep him there in order to protect ourselves. (...) The child starves to death. (...) No they should not. But (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) In general, yes. (...) If that was the only change, yes. But I'm not advocating that one change alone, so no. (...) I can say yes to that question, because in general I am satisfied that regulations do not significantly lower risk, but rather, (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)
| | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) You don't have to say hello each time, especially when you're saying hello to someone else than the post author. :-) (I wrote this one) (...) If you had a choice are you going to use the road that cares or the one that doesn't? You forget the (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)
| | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) Arguably, no. Not on a rights based calculus. But see Friedman (1) who argues that rights based calculus breaks down at the edges (asserting your right not to ingest one molecule of extra CO2 due to a car near but not on your property is a bit (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
