Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 May 2001 01:27:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
712 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > Well, if the road was too dangerous, the trucking company would either
> > pay for a better road, wouldn't deliver, or whatever. Eventually, the
> > costs would balance. If the road is unsafe because the locals wanted too
> > cheap a road, it would drive up other costs to the point where people
> > would either be comfortable with the risk vs reward, or the better more
> > expensive road would look more attractive. The market is capable of
> > realizing that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure 99% of
> > the time
>
> That really isn't true. Companies have invariably dragged their feet on the
> "ounce of prevention" angle. The cold truth is, as much as businesses get
> over-regulated, they invariably brought it on themselves by NOT taking care
> of business.
Business has never been free to realize that an ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure. They have never been actually liable for their damages across
the long term. They have never existed in an unrestrained market where the
government would not bail them out of their little worries by taking care of
their vicitms. We can't say that business has dragged their feet because I
think they are specifically disincented to take that kind of responsibilty by
our protectionist system.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
