Subject:
|
Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Oct 2001 22:59:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
574 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
>
> > But you missed my point. The State grants the license, but the use the
> > driver makes of it is his responsability.
>
> So if it is ultimately the driver's responsibility, what good then is the
> license or the act of issuing it?
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.
> > His own *sense* must dictate
> > whether he is or not fit to drive. If not his sense, his body. If neither,
> > the family (hopefully). Or else we will have a potential problem - which is
> > less likely to occurr than drunk driving (another issue of sense and
> > responsability).
>
> There is no difference in kind among these. Both are abrogations of
> responsibility.
Synonym, PLEASE! :-)
And how can they have no difference in kind?
> I believe you are caught in a contradiction, you have conceded that the
> licensing act does nothing to improve safety
Well, it won't stop an accident, if that's what you mean.
> and that it is a personal
> responsibility issue
Of course. The license *shows the world* one is technically fit to drive. If
he drives or not with the license, that is up to him.
But without the license, *I* am not sure the person behind the wheel knows
the Road Laws (dunno about equivalence abroad). And that is something I want
to be assured of, both as a driver and non-driver.
> and that licenses therefore are useless
No way! Useless, no. There is a question of proof... see above.
> yet you still
> cling to the state and its false protective cloak.
Yeah, right. The State is evil, and all that.
I happen to like the State protective cloak. MY State. It has never failed
me beyond my will to forgive.
And you know why? Because it issues rules, licences, and all that sort of
stuff. Sure, it is a hassle to take all that time in queues, but it pays off
when I know who to blame, and for what.
Take this example: a driver runs over my kid intentionally (hopefully not!).
I will:
a) shoot him dead (American way?);
b) have him arrested, tried for murder, imprisoned for 25 years and then
released WITHOUT Driver's License, so that he won't kill some other person
the same way 25 years later?
c) He has no license, so no insurance, so no way to compensate (!) me in any
way... Forced Labour for him, besides imprisonment?
Now the licensing thing seems reasonable? (even though the example is extreme)
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
