3 ms·
Why stop at three? What about Arizona's lawmakers for allowing this in the first place, or not demanding that certain safety measures are met?
by tolbish 6y ago
Why stop at three? What about Arizona's lawmakers for allowing this in the first place, or not demanding that certain safety measures are met?
- kolbe 6y agoCareful. If you think about this too much, you might end up realizing how absurd “justice” systems everywhere are. Maybe say everything has one cause: the initial conditions on the differential equation that governs all existence.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- patrickthebold 6y agoOr even the voters for voting for said lawmakers.
- CryptoPunk 6y agoThat assumes that the state has a responsibility to micro-manage every activity, with prohibitions on activity that doesn't follow the prescribed regiment, to prevent negligence. The individuals involved in an activity are the only ones responsible for avoiding negligent behavior in a society based on the liberal democratic principles of individual rights and responsibilities. However, to give due credit to your musing, the Uber situation is somewhat different in being on public roads, which lawmakers do have some responsibility to govern an individual's use of, for the safety of others who share public roads with the individual.
- tolbish 6y agoWe allow the state to micromanage the activities of individuals all the time, such as with drug, prostitution, and porn laws.