| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Since in Florida, for example, an 89 year old person who barely passes the
> > eyesight test and barely passes the "can you say your name" test can renew a
> > previously held license for 6 years, during which they can go completely
> > blind and completely senile...
> As for the case of the old man, it is up to him and his family to provide
> alternatives - this way he won't have to drive, someone will drive him.
> Question of sense.
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 illustrating, after all.
> > So no, I don't see drivers licenses as any use for anything. If roads were
> > private, I am sure that most road owners would require much more stringent
> > proof of competence to operate on their roads than the state requires.
> Or not. They would want as many people as possible to go through their roads
> to pay toll;
Maximising sales does not maximise profit, study supply and demand theory to
see why.
> then would neglect maintenance to maximize profit.
Please demonstrate how neglecting maintenance maximises long term profit in
a free market.
> See the case
> of the british railroads, and draw a paralell.
Not an example of a free market. So inapplicable.
> > This is an example of the general case assertion "regulations do not make
> > you safer than a free market system, they make you less safe than a free
> > market system"
>
> Tell that to the millions of Russians who were left without their promised
> pensions after years of hard work. I am pretty sure they curse free market
> without social concerns (or regulations, from a different perspective).
Since they didn't have a free market, but rather a kleptocracy, their
cursing is misplaced. You will need to try a bit harder to refute the
assertion than that.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| 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...
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) 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)
|
173 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
|
|
|
|
