3 ms·

>I don't want to live in a country where unsafely shipping materials in a shared plane is legal and handled by civil suits. Putting others in extreme danger sho

by ancap 10y ago

>I don't want to live in a country where unsafely shipping materials in a shared plane is legal and handled by civil suits. Putting others in extreme danger should always be illegal when it's as black-and-white as this. We could live in a country where it's illegal to possess materials which may be unsafely transported. We can never be too safe, you know.

smt88 10y ago
> We could live in a country where it's illegal to possess materials which may be unsafely transported You seem to be suggesting that regulating the transport of dangerous materials is a slippery slope. That's like arguing that speed limits are a slippery slope toward a ban on driving. Maybe that makes sense in some absolutist libertarian nightmare, but in the real world we have to weigh the real danger of regulation against the real danger of deregulation. In this case, it's not much trouble to package sulfuric acid in a safe container. It is, however, a lot of trouble to be injured or killed by sulfuric acid. I honestly can't believe that there's anyone arguing how the pros/cons shake out in that specific scenario.
- ancap 10y ago
  You're appealing to a need for safety, but where you draw the line is arbitrary. I am only demonstrating that, following the same logic you are using, I draw the line somewhere else which results in a completely different, though absurd, outcome. What is the principle which makes where you drew the line correct and where I drew the line incorrect? You also suggest that because transporting these materials in an unsafe manner is illegal and punishable by a fine, that that is somehow a bigger deterrent to businesses than the threat of a lawsuit. How so, and why is the illegality of it supposed to be a bigger deterrent than a lawsuit?
  - lmm 10y ago
    > You're appealing to a need for safety, but where you draw the line is arbitrary. I am only demonstrating that, following the same logic you are using, I draw the line somewhere else which results in a completely different, though absurd, outcome. What is the principle which makes where you drew the line correct and where I drew the line incorrect? Maybe there is no first-principles answer here (certainly either of the obvious principles-based approaches gives absurd results). Maybe we do just have to weigh up the costs and benefits of individual cases as best as we can. > You also suggest that because transporting these materials in an unsafe manner is illegal and punishable by a fine, that that is somehow a bigger deterrent to businesses than the threat of a lawsuit. How so, and why is the illegality of it supposed to be a bigger deterrent than a lawsuit? Leaving it up to lawsuits to enforce public safety doesn't square very well with the limited-liability corporation. Imagine ten companies engaging in dangerous shipping practices, and one of them actually having an incident. If we only fine the one that had the incident, we bankrupt it and don't recover the full public-health cost.
    - ancap 10y ago
      >Leaving it up to lawsuits to enforce public safety doesn't square very well with the limited-liability corporation. Imagine ten companies engaging in dangerous shipping practices, and one of them actually having an incident. If we only fine the one that had the incident, we bankrupt it and don't recover the full public-health cost. It's not just lawsuits which would enforce these type of public safety issues sans-FAA (or other federal organization). The private companies which are doing the shipping, in this case UPS, would have their own terms of services and contracts which would prohibit unsafe transportation of hazardous chemicals.

by ancap 10y ago

smt88 10y ago

> We could live in a country where it's illegal to possess materials which may be unsafely transported You seem to be suggesting that regulating the transport of dangerous materials is a slippery slope. That's like arguing that speed limits are a slippery slope toward a ban on driving. Maybe that makes sense in some absolutist libertarian nightmare, but in the real world we have to weigh the real danger of regulation against the real danger of deregulation. In this case, it's not much trouble to package sulfuric acid in a safe container. It is, however, a lot of trouble to be injured or killed by sulfuric acid. I honestly can't believe that there's anyone arguing how the pros/cons shake out in that specific scenario.

ancap 10y ago
You're appealing to a need for safety, but where you draw the line is arbitrary. I am only demonstrating that, following the same logic you are using, I draw the line somewhere else which results in a completely different, though absurd, outcome. What is the principle which makes where you drew the line correct and where I drew the line incorrect? You also suggest that because transporting these materials in an unsafe manner is illegal and punishable by a fine, that that is somehow a bigger deterrent to businesses than the threat of a lawsuit. How so, and why is the illegality of it supposed to be a bigger deterrent than a lawsuit?
- lmm 10y ago
  > You're appealing to a need for safety, but where you draw the line is arbitrary. I am only demonstrating that, following the same logic you are using, I draw the line somewhere else which results in a completely different, though absurd, outcome. What is the principle which makes where you drew the line correct and where I drew the line incorrect? Maybe there is no first-principles answer here (certainly either of the obvious principles-based approaches gives absurd results). Maybe we do just have to weigh up the costs and benefits of individual cases as best as we can. > You also suggest that because transporting these materials in an unsafe manner is illegal and punishable by a fine, that that is somehow a bigger deterrent to businesses than the threat of a lawsuit. How so, and why is the illegality of it supposed to be a bigger deterrent than a lawsuit? Leaving it up to lawsuits to enforce public safety doesn't square very well with the limited-liability corporation. Imagine ten companies engaging in dangerous shipping practices, and one of them actually having an incident. If we only fine the one that had the incident, we bankrupt it and don't recover the full public-health cost.
  - ancap 10y ago
    >Leaving it up to lawsuits to enforce public safety doesn't square very well with the limited-liability corporation. Imagine ten companies engaging in dangerous shipping practices, and one of them actually having an incident. If we only fine the one that had the incident, we bankrupt it and don't recover the full public-health cost. It's not just lawsuits which would enforce these type of public safety issues sans-FAA (or other federal organization). The private companies which are doing the shipping, in this case UPS, would have their own terms of services and contracts which would prohibit unsafe transportation of hazardous chemicals.