Subject:
|
Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Oct 2001 14:09:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
739 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Horst Lehner writes:
>
>
> > > > 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.
> >
> > If there isn't a regulation, it cannot be broken - that is obvious. So there
> > is no RISK it will be broken! Ergo, your assumption is correct - but adds
> > nothing new to the debate... ;-)
>
> But that's not what I meant. I was talking about the risk that fundamental
> rights will be violated, like when someone gets killed.
Laws, not regulations, ameliorate fundamental rights violations.
If someone gets killed and an automobile is involved, there are some
possibilities
The auto was used as a weapon - this is murder and the law against murder is
the thing to invoke, not the regulation about how to park safely.
The death was not intentional, but was due to negligence of some sort - This
is a matter of civil litigation and is covered by tort law, not the
regulations on what tire pressure should be stamped on the side of the tire
The death was purely accidental - this is a matter for insurance coverage,
not regulation.
> And I do believe
> that driver's licenses, while they certainly cannot eliminate the risk,
> still do a good job of lowering it.
And I have presented a counter example that shows it does no such thing, at
least in some cases.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) But not in others? Surely the relative percentages of each would give an indication of whether the overall risk is lowered by licences or not? Have there been any studies about this? ROSCO (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) But that's not what I meant. I was talking about the risk that fundamental rights will be violated, like when someone gets killed. And I do believe that driver's licenses, while they certainly cannot eliminate the risk, still do a good job of (...) (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
|
|
|
|
