Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (9791)	3/26/2001 7:40:32 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

<i.As a general principle are you for laws which limit the legal right of someone to take physical risks? What a wonderful question to start a discussion! But you have to pose the question with two prongs. One: in a world where everybody could be held accountable for the consequences of their actions, so that, for example, a person who chose to ride a motorcycle without a helmet and had a crash and was in a coma for years had to pay for their own medical care, or be allowed to die if they hadn't arranged for adequate medical care, and Two: in the world we have, where the cost of stupidity or taking excessive physical risks (whatever those are defined as) is generally borne by society as a whole, so that resources which might have gone to education, or prenatal care, or community safety, or even back to the people in a tax cut, have to be diverted to keeping the motorcyclist in a coma alive for thirty years. My answer is perhaps obvious: I wish for world one, and absolute freedom. But what we have is world two, and IMO people don't have the right to be stupid and expect me to pay for it.