Subject:
|
Re: Freedoms in Libertopia? (was Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:11:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1436 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> I suppose we are talking semantics here, because you might say that all is
> legal and if someone killed me while driving drunk, that's my tough luck, but
> the person (if caught) would have to pay reparations to my family. I would
> say arrest the person for committing the crime of driving in the influence AND
> murder and make them work off their debt to society. Civil action against the
> drunk would be possible as well from my surviving family.
>
> I would gladly support a crime fighting force which actively sought out such
> drivers and arrested them *before* they had the chance to ruin others' lives.
Are there systems that can prevent irresponsible driving that might work
even better than what we have now? The US has an alarmingly high amount of
DWI. Our system may not be working all that well. Other countries are even
worse.
I don't have the answer well formed, but suppose that it was possible to
develop a device that (with no false negatives) could reliably detect
intoxication and would then not allow the vehicle to be operated. How much
of a discount would you expect on your auto insurance in exchange for
agreeing that all your vehicles be equipped with it?
I know that if the device wasn't very expensive to procure, I'd do it for a
2 percent or so discount. That's not much of a discount, is it? But then I
almost never DWI so it would be free money to me.
If roads were privatised, would it be reasonable for a road owner to
disallow, or to charge significantly higher tolls, to vehicles not so
equipped? How about if the roads were still public?
As a note, I recall seeing my parents old insurance bills having a discount
because their vehicles all had seat belts (this was a long time ago, 1963
was the date on the bill, before they were required) and my current bill has
a discount because one of my vehicles has an anti theft device. That is a
discount imposed by regulatory agencies. Wouldn't the market do the same,
though?
There's a line in here somewhere I haven't pinned down. I'm against a priori
restraint of things like owning gasoline or guns, but I think I'm for a
priori restraint of things like driving while too befuddled to stay on one
side of the road.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
279 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
|
|
|
|
