To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 10408
10407  |  10409
Subject: 
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 11 May 2001 14:13:46 GMT
Viewed: 
746 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
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.

If they aren't liable, then why do they spend so much effort dodging
liablity?  I'm not sure what you are basing your claims off of, but I gotta
disagree with virtually every sentence above.  And I'm also talking about
throughout history, not just the last couple of years.

Bruce



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
 
(...) a (...) I mean that business liability as found by a court is virtually always disproportionate with the damages done. They are often fined way too much, and people make jokes about it for years (McDonalds coffee comes to mind), and they are (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
 
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR