Subject:
|
Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Feb 2003 21:40:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
279 times
|
| |
|
|
David Koudys wrote:
> Because once you open Pandoras Box, you're in it up to your neck.
The box is already open. This proposed law is just reminding us that it
is open. But we don't want to close it. Lawsuits are the civilized way
of settling disputes.
> About the cats off the bridge--I think I alluded to my belief in not harming
> animals in my first post--testing and/or otherwise.
But what basis do you use to hold the cat thrower responsible for his
actions? If we grant a property right to the cat, then we have a basis
to hold the cat thrower responsible. Otherwise, we need to decide that
throwing cats off bridges is bad. But then we write a law that either
forgets to mention that throwing cats off cliffs is also bad, or it has
such a poor definition of abuse that someone who runs a cat over on the
highway could be punished also never mind he never even saw the cat dart
out through traffic.
Property rights based analysis can acknowledge that the driver was in
some small way negligent for running over the cat, but acknowledge that
avoiding running over the cat would be an unreasonable limitation of the
driver's rights. Now we are balancing rights. You're right to cross the
street without being run over ends at the point where you fail to grant
me my right to drive a reasonable speed on the street.
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
| (...) And I'm pointing out that we live in society more and more intent on a "Sue or be sued" mentality. So I was around 11 years olf. We had a dog named Taffy. Taffy was a wonderful dog who came to a very unkind end when some construction material (...) (21 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
47 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
