Subject:
|
Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Jan 2000 22:51:13 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
LPIENIAZEK@NOVERA.COMnomorespam
|
Viewed:
|
2489 times
|
| |
|
|
<388F65A5.9AD75FB2@voyager.net> <Foyr5w.Fo2@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > <Fowt5K.s1@lugnet.com> <388E2BFD.FB5B993@voyager.net> • <FoynLG.JGJ@lugnet.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> > Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> >
> > > Your property.
> >
> > Fair enough, why not me, I'm as good an example as any, and better than
> > most. Posit for the sake of this flippant example that I am not
> > charitable (that is, that I did not invite these refugees onto my land,
> > and did not grant them safe passage across it).
>
> You seem to be taking this as a personal insult, Larry. What's with this
> perjorative labeling? If it's flippant, it isn't really worthy of response.
You yourself said it was an example intended to amuse at the start of
the sub thread... I'm just playing along. I'm certainly not taking it as
an insult. In fact, since there are scores of things in the group that I
haven't addressed for want of time, I'd instead say just the opposite, I
think it's funny enough of an example to entice me into responding..
> If it isn't, then aren't you just taking a cheap shot? I provided additional
> scenarios that I think would pass the non-flippant standard, but you seem to
> have excised them.
In the interests of brevity, I've not addressed the other parts of the
overall example, and am dwelling on this one aspect to work it to a
logical conclusion. IF we can get there. Once you cave, or once you find
a flaw and we have to recast my chain of logic to get it to be correct,
we'll circle back. IF your questions are amusing enough for me to be
interested.
> >
> > > They flopped over dead there by sheer random chance (perhaps it
> > > was a simple heart attack). So you are saying they become your personal
> > > liablity?
> >
> > Yes, they are my personal liability.
>
> Okay. Now, just get the electorate to agree to that.
I'm sorry, what does the electorate have to do with it? I thought you
were asking about how starving immigrants who happened to have the
misfortune to die before they could find work would be handled in
libertopia? Did I misunderstand your question? If so, I'll stop. But if
not, the electorate has nothing to do with personal liability, it's not
something that one can vote out of existance in libertopia. That's kind
of the point of libertopia, after all.
> > In your example that "sheer random chance" is an accident. Accidents
> > happen. A tree could have been struck by lightning and no one was to
> > blame, yet because it happened on my property, I'm stuck with the
> > cleanup. Heck, that tree might have blown in from somewhere totally
> > unidentifiable during a hurricane and even if it wasn't my tree to start
> > with, I'm still stuck. That's life... and that's what insurance is for.
> > You can't avoid accidents completely, you can only prepare for them.
> > Failure to prepare is no excuse and no claim on the property of others.
>
> But we did prepare: we collectively agreed to fund a county coroner. We even
> agreed to levee taxes to pay for it.
Again, see above. In libertopia there won't be a county coroner, I don't
think. Or if there is, his function will be more of an aid to
investigation of crimes than as a public cleaner upper of errant bodies.
And he certainly wouldn't be tax supported.
> People who fall dead on your property are "trespassers"? How dare they!
If they WERE invited, they clearly are my responsibility, aren't they?
I'd certainly ASK if there was someone that had responsibility for them,
like a relative, but even today, if someone happens to keel over in a
Walmart, penniless, Walmart has to bear the cost of cleaning the floor
where it happened, (although, today, the taxpayers have the privilege of
taking the rest of the expense on the chin) since Walmart invited them
in, assuming they could pay, and there is some sort of implied contract
there, the same one that says you don't get to remove price tags or hide
merchandise under your coat and Walmart doesn't get to have its
employees shoot at you for no reason, and can't have excessivly slippery
floors, and a thousand other things.
If they WEREN'T invited and explicitly were there against my wishes,
they're trespassing while they are alive... isn't that the common law
definition of trespassing??? Being somewhere where one is not welcome?
What am I missing here?
Either they were invited and therefore are by definition my
responsibility, or they weren't and by definition were trespassing. Now
as I stated before, sometimes bad luck happens. Trees sometimes fall for
no reason, trespassers sometimes keel over for no reason. I have to be
prepared to deal. If I can't find out who IS responsible, tough luck. I
am. I get to try, though. (well, I trust, my insurance company,
skinflints that they are, will try on my behalf)
You seem to be complaining that I said it was my responsibility in
either case. So you want me NOT to take responsibility? Is that it?
Pass. That thinking doesn't fly well in libertopia.
> Actually, they were dragged there by your non-prepared neighbor, but you can't
> prove it.
The first time. After that I'll watch a bit more closely. But you seem
to have such a low opinion of my neighbors... far lower than I do. This
is a flippant example (although worthy of examination nonetheless)
because it's so extremely improbable.
--
Larry Pieniazek - larryp@novera.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
| (...) No, I said it wasn't intended to be taken seriously. I was refering to my example only. But after thinking about it, I decided it may have legitimate repurcussions. My point really is that there can be a cost to a society by having an open (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
| (...) For one, the electorate has to agree to go to libertopia in the first place. (...) Personal liability now includes not only things you might possibly be indirectly responsible for, which already is very insidious, but also things you are not (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
| (...) Yup. There are very good reasons not to let economic refugees cross into your country freely. Most especially if you are richer than your neighbours. (...) The problem isn't that the market wouldn't provide food. It's that the market would not (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 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
|
|
|
|
