Subject:
|
Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2001 16:36:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
753 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Horst Lehner writes:
> Someone (not sure who, think it was me) said:
> > Someone else (again, not sure who, think it was Horst) said:
> > > Requiring a license does improve safety (though not perfectly).
> >
> > You haven't demonstrated that to my satisfaction.
>
> Well, I may not be able to ...
Thank you.
> > > True, it just sets a minimum standard [1].
> >
> > Minimum standards tend to become maximum standards in a regulatory
> > environment.
>
> Not if the interest to conform to the minimum standard is complemented by
> additional interest to do even better.
There is no market incentive to do so, though, given the regulatory shield.
> > > This is at least sensible, because some
> > > people don't exercise personal responsibility in the way they should.
> >
> > There are other, better, mechanisms for changing this behaviour than
> > regulations. Regulations give a shield to hide behind when things go awry...
> > "but our security process complied with federal regulation" that isn't there
> > under Tort law.
>
> I never intended to *replace* tort law by regulations. I always thought of
> them as complementary. Obviously, should have been more explicit on that.
Intent notwithstanding, this nevertheless tends to be the outcome.
> > If the president of Delta Airlines knew that his malfeasance might result in
> > the entire airline going bankrupt, loss of his personal fortune, and his
> > incarceration in jail (all possible under strict liability, not possible in
> > our current shielded system) his actions would be much much different, to
> > our great benefit. He's not stupid.
>
> But still, in extreme cases, the company will have paid only a fraction of
> its actual liability, unless there is, again, a regulation. A regulation
> that requires the company to be insured against damage it may do to others.
You're starting in the middle. The company would never be allowed (by the
firms it contracted with) to operate at airports in the first place without
satisfactory insurance.
We get this all the time, we need to provide proof of insurance against all
sorts of things and mechanisms (to do code escrow for example) to protect
our counterparties in just about every contract we enter into.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) Well, I may not be able to ... (...) Not if the interest to conform to the minimum standard is complemented by additional interest to do even better. (...) I never intended to *replace* tort law by regulations. I always thought of them as (...) (23 years ago, 24-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
|
|
|
|
