 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Pedro Silva
|
| | | (...) And what would it be done to prevent fraud, then? (...) So why not put a 5-year-old driving a Humvee, if his father can pay for the damage? As for the case of the old man, it is up to him and his family to provide alternatives - this way he (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Oh, I agree with you, totally! He SHOULD NOT be driving. So then... you concede that since the state nevertheless issued him a license, that licenses don't work to keep unsafe drivers off the road, right? That's what the example is (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner
|
| | | | | Hello Larry, you must be really opposed to ANY type of regulation, if this is the type of argument you use: (...) No regulation ever solves any problem 100% completely. But don't you think there would be a lot MORE unsafe drivers on the road WITHOUT (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) 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... —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Maybe some other time, this is a bit of a sidetrack. (...) Great, let's work to remove regulation where we both agree... (...) and when that deregulation happens, and people get used to the idea that regulations DON'T keep them safer than the (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) (snipped) (...) If so many favor it, it can be right. The choice of the majority, right or wrong, is the one to follow. The basic principle of Democracy. (...) I dunno, I'll take your word for it. ;-) Pedro (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) No. Might, or mob rule, does not make right. Rights must be paramount to the desires of the mob. I reject democracy when it is unfettered. The majority voting to deny even one single person rights, while democratic, is unjust. I prefer a (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Huh... does that mean only a few can decide my rights, if I belong to the mob? I disagree with you all the way. If more people want it, it is to be done. (...) (sorry, did not understand... please provide synonym. TIA) (...) Ah, yes. See (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) But who, then, decides what those rights should be. You? Me? Thinking over it, I would prefer the second ;-) :wq Horst (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) There is no perfect scheme but I prefer some process (undefined? what our founding fathers did? something else?) to ratify some basic set of rights and then sticking to those rather than allowing 51% majorities to override them on whim. If (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Whatever we in Germany have set down as basic rights can only be changed with 2/3 (instead of 1/2) of the votes. Not a perfect solution, but there has to be a legal way to change things that don't work well, even with basic rights ... :wq (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Something that tends to get forgotten I think is that just because all _government_ regulation is removed that there will be no regulation. I'm sure many, if not most, of the licenses which exist today would exist in a Libertopia. The (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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... —Horst Lehner
|
| | | | | | | | (...) But that's not what I meant. I was talking about the risk that fundamental rights will be violated, like when someone gets killed. And I do believe that driver's licenses, while they certainly cannot eliminate the risk, still do a good job of (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Laws, not regulations, ameliorate fundamental rights violations. If someone gets killed and an automobile is involved, there are some possibilities The auto was used as a weapon - this is murder and the law against murder is the thing to (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) But not in others? Surely the relative percentages of each would give an indication of whether the overall risk is lowered by licences or not? Have there been any studies about this? ROSCO (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well I COULD assert in all cases but it's not very provable, is it? (...) I'm suspecting not, since I don't know of any jurisdiction (similar enough to make meaningful comparisions, Botswana (if they didn't require them) doesn't count) that (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Note that we're talking about drivers licenses here. I have seen LOTS of studies (and you could go dig them up if you wanted to, try starting at cato.org) about other sorts of licenses... all different kinds of licenses, showing inefficacy, (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner
|
| | | | | | Hello Larry, it seems you have discussed this earlier than I jumped in. From some earlier posting from you on air safety I assume that you advocate the free market for any type of product, even security. (...) So, if I get you right, you would want (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | (...) Yup. And some kind of licensing and proof of insurance will probably be part of that security. Incidentally, were I to be a road owner, one thing I would insist on is that drivers be insured in addition to vehicles. The vehicle isn't (usually) (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Subject to the usage agreements, of course. As Frank said, different companies would have different agreements. (...) Correct. Please note that if I were privatising things, roads would be far down the list, after many many many easier things (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner
|
| | | | | | | (...) But doesn't it take some sensible level of safety (as opposed to absolute safety) to ensure the value of the "life" part of your rights definition? (...) Don't get me wrong: As long as X is NOT a basic human right, I am OK with X being only (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Paid for by whom? Government sets up systems but should not be providing goods. What is the value of a life, by the way? Don't answer infinite, that's the wrong answer and will give you silly results. The proper functions of goverment in a (...) (23 years ago, 13-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Hmm, Larry, I think you fired that off without thinking about it, or you're being obtuse. My circumstances have a great deal to do with how hard I work, yes. That applies, in a relative degree, to virtually everyone on the planet (work (...) (23 years ago, 13-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner
|
| | | | | | | | (...) If security is a good, then the right to live has very little value as well. (...) It seems to be more in Europe than in the US. (...) That was too quick a victory for you to let it go ;-) First, I already have said that I see no way to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) Or more likely, they were blessed with beneficial circumstances. (...) And here's the only problem with laissez faire. OF COURSE it isn't fair that those who are cleverer have more than those who are not. What deep misunderstanding of the (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) It is even less fair (in a libertarian world) if a person who has more $$, can give their kids better access to healthcare and education. This makes it harder for poorer kids to succeed. We had a system like that in the UK before WW2. (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | (...) 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: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) 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... —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | (...) You have correctly interpreted my "No", Lar. "No, it does not", that was what I should have written. Language issues... :-) But you missed my point. The State grants the license, but the use the driver makes of it is his responsability. His (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) So if it is ultimately the driver's responsibility, what good then is the license or the act of issuing it? (...) There is no difference in kind among these. Both are abrogations of responsibility. I believe you are caught in a contradiction, (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | | (...) First, it proves the driver knows how to drive; second, it issues HIM the responsability for his actions behind the wheel, and noone else. It acts more to third parties' safety/insurance than the driver himself. (...) Synonym, PLEASE! :-) And (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | I'm not really sure what this has to do with licensing, but it seemed fun... (...) Does the question mark mean that you are unsure if this is the American way of handling it? I'd have to say that it is not. Now, I wouldn't convict someone were I (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner
|
| | | | Hello Larry, (...) No, you're trying to construct the contradiction, by requiring that the result of a regulation must be perfect. Requiring a license does improve safety (though not perfectly). True, it just sets a minimum standard [1]. This is at (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) You haven't demonstrated that to my satisfaction. (...) Minimum standards tend to become maximum standards in a regulatory environment. (...) There are other, better, mechanisms for changing this behaviour than regulations. Regulations give a (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —James Simpson
|
| | | | | (...) In the case of United Airlines, rather than having to face the true weight of their possible negligence in terms of security failures leading up to the disasters, they have de facto been rewarded by govt. shielding that has given them a (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) I have flown since then. It was the same as before, yet vastly different, both at the same time in a spooky sort of way. Same terminals, same security guards at my end, but much more serious... and much less attitude from everyone involved. (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) Actually, they were flying up to 9-11. They just decided as soon as the grounding occurred and it became clear that it was going to be more than just the rest of the day or so, that it wasn't worth trying to continue when they would lose so (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) OK, thanks for that correction. I stand corrected. (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Horst Lehner
|
| | | | (...) Well, I may not be able to ... (...) Not if the interest to conform to the minimum standard is complemented by additional interest to do even better. (...) I never intended to *replace* tort law by regulations. I always thought of them as (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Gotta love Oracle... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Thank you. (...) There is no market incentive to do so, though, given the regulatory shield. (...) Intent notwithstanding, this nevertheless tends to be the outcome. (...) You're starting in the middle. The company would never be allowed (by (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
