Subject:
|
Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Oct 2001 05:38:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
673 times
|
| |
|
|
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.
> > 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.
So, if I get you right, you would want to do away with the requirement of a
license to drive, but at the same time privatize roads and hold road
companies liable for any damage to users of the road. Consequently, road
companies would ensure a sensible level of security on their roads, in order
to maximize their profit. Correct?
> > 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 the context of arms, wouldn't that mean that you have to hold
manufacturers of arms liable for any damage their arms do to anyone?
Generally, don't you think that some sensible level of safety is one of the
very basic human rights? And if so, don't you think that only the rich will
get it through free market mechanisms? And if so, how can you justify that?
Greetings
Horst
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) 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...
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
