Subject:
|
Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 30 Jan 2000 22:01:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2633 times
|
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 22:51:13 GMT, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net>
wrote:
> I'm sorry, what does the electorate have to do with it? I thought you
For one, the electorate has to agree to go to libertopia in the first
place.
> 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.
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 at all responsible for?
> 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.
But that is exactly what the county coroner is: an aide to the police.
The coroner decides if a body found was murdered or killed, rather
than dying of natural causes. Do you expect the policeman on the spot
to do that?
> And he certainly wouldn't be tax supported.
Why on earth not? The police would be, according to you.
> am. I get to try, though. (well, I trust, my insurance company,
> skinflints that they are, will try on my behalf)
And double your premium, don't forget. Or cut you off from further
insurance altogether, if they can't find anyone responsible. What, you
think that if you're not responsible for it, they won't remove your
no-claim bonus? Yeah. Right.
> 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.
Maybe your neighbours wouldn't drag a corpse over to your land.
But what about random garbage? How often, exactly, do you see garbage
dumped along roads, or in other people's garden, or anywhere but the
garbage dump where the polluters get to pay for the privilege?
I'm betting the number is decisively non-zero, unless you turn a blind
eye unconsciously. This scenario is by no means improbable. Now,
taking care of a random corpse costs at least $500-1000 or so, plus
lost time in proving that you weren't responsible for his death, etc..
With that kind of money involved, people _will_ do things to get rid
of them. And there's the whole "I don't want people to think I killed
'em" factor as well, in cases of deaths.
Jasper
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
| <388F65A5.9AD75FB2@voyager.net> <Foyr5w.Fo2@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) You yourself said it was an example intended to amuse at the start of the sub thread... I'm just playing along. (...) (25 years ago, 26-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
|
|
|
|
