4 ms·
it's fundamentally a problem of proof and abuse of power. It's much less clear how one proves recklessness vs actual harm, and much easier to abuse power when t
by ledauphin 6y ago
it's fundamentally a problem of proof and abuse of power. It's much less clear how one proves recklessness vs actual harm, and much easier to abuse power when the only standard for judgement is "what somebody else thinks is the inevitable (future) outcome" of a given action.
- aqme28 6y agoI see your point about the potential for abuse of power when the negative outcome is difficult to assess, but I don't think that's a strong enough concern to negate a whole class of laws. How would you propose we disallow dumping of industrial chemicals that may be too novel to have had a full harm assessment?