Subject:
|
Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Oct 2001 12:51:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
689 times
|
| |
|
|
Horst Lehner wrote:
>
> 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?
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) at fault in the accident, it is the driver (who is usually,
but not always, the owner).
I think car rental agencies would love this. Their insurance costs would
be reduced somewhat (so long as they make some attempt to verify the
renters driving insurance). They would even still get to sell their
supplemental insurance.
> > > 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?
Safety is derrived from property rights, so "some sensible level of
safety" is at least indirectly a basic human right. The free market idea
is that everyone will be accorded some level of safety. The rich do
depend on the labor of the masses. It is to the rich person's advantage
to have happy, reasonably safe employees.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
