Subject:
|
Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Oct 2001 21:00:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
548 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > 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 the requirement
> > for a license?
>
> If that was the only change, yes. But I'm not advocating that one change
> alone, so no.
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
without licenses (or expired licenses), and already too many people driving
without insurance. If NOONE was required to have a license, more people would
drive without any documentation, including proof of insurance, because reality
has shown many people will try to get away with it.
And suing someone that was driving without insurance is trying to get blood from
a turnip - you'll get nothing out of it, because the people that tend to drive
without insurance usually do so because they can't afford it. If they can't
afford insurance, how do you think you'll get any useful compensation out of them
when they smash into your loved-ones car and kill them? And if you say "I'd get
it from MY insurance company, good luck - with that type of system, Uninsured
Motorists fees would go through the roof due to the larger # of people Driving
Without Insurance. Many people wouldn't be able to affod the UM fees at that
point.
> > In general, don't you think that a regulation is warranted
> > when it significantly lowers the risk for innocent people to get their
> > rights violated by others who inappropriately abuse their rights?
>
> I can say yes to that question, because in general I am satisfied that
> regulations do not significantly lower risk, but rather, increase it. Hence
> the conditions for regulation don't exist.
In many cases, I will agree with you, but not in the case of DLs/auto insurance.
--
| Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server Technical Support
| Sun Microsystems Customer Service
| iPlanet Support - http://www.iplanet.com/support/
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) 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...
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
