Subject:
|
Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:40:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
585 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Horst Lehner writes:
> 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.
Subject to the usage agreements, of course. As Frank said, different
companies would have different agreements.
> Consequently, road
> companies would ensure a sensible level of security on their roads, in order
> to maximize their profit. Correct?
Correct. Please note that if I were privatising things, roads would be far
down the list, after many many many easier things were done first. Roads ARE
hard to privatise.
> > > 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?
No, because "doing damage" is the intended use of arms. Rather I would hold
them liable for things like misfires and jamming if that was due to shoddy
manufacturing and there was a reasonable expectation of correct operation.
> Generally, don't you think that some sensible level of safety is one of the
> very basic human rights?
No. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Safety is too broadly
defined to be a right.
> And if so, don't you think that only the rich will
> get it through free market mechanisms?
and again no. You fall into the classic "only the rich will have X" fallacy.
> And if so, how can you justify that?
Don't need to because it's on two false premises. But if the question were
"is it fair that the rich have more/better of Y?" I would answer yes, it is,
if these are free market rich we are talking about. They've earned it. Is it
not fair that those who work harder or are cleverer have more than those
that don't?
>
> Greetings
>
> Horst
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) But doesn't it take some sensible level of safety (as opposed to absolute safety) to ensure the value of the "life" part of your rights definition? (...) Don't get me wrong: As long as X is NOT a basic human right, I am OK with X being only (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) Or more likely, they were blessed with beneficial circumstances. (...) And here's the only problem with laissez faire. OF COURSE it isn't fair that those who are cleverer have more than those who are not. What deep misunderstanding of the (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
