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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (10353)	1/30/2006 11:00:13 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541674

Would it follow that we should abolish speed limits and just impose all the costs of an accident on the responsible party? The problem would be twofold - first, more people would be killed, and even if they are paid for, that is not a social good. Second, many if not most drivers who kill others are poor idiots. Their insurance company would have to pay, which all of us pay for. Where does the state get to draw the line on conduct it can regulate for a broader good? I concede there is no simple answer. But traffic oversight authority never struck me as excessive.

To: Lane3 who wrote (10353)	1/30/2006 11:06:02 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541674

How do people with no money bear the cost? And then, on the other hand, if the poor cannot drive, you'll make them even poorer. Sorry- I don't see this as the same as someone killing their parents. But feel free to elaborate, if you can make it more clear how a lawful activity carried out by people who are poor, is the same thing as killing your parents.