5 ms·

More collective punishment of law-abiding people. I'm glad I moved out of California.

cromwellian 5y ago
So car insurance is collective punishment? You own a gun, you increase collective risk. Conservatives hate paying for negative externalities but love positive externalities it seems.
- shiohime 5y ago
  You should pay a fee and have internet insurance anytime someone commits a cybercrime. Shit it's not even about left/right but rather the government is completely incompetent and cannot protect its citizens so they decide to tax them via "required" insurance if you exercise your right to own a gun? lol.
  - cromwellian 5y ago
    Indirectly yes. Online firms should have to carry hacker insurance, and pay a penalty for when they get hacked and personal data is widely leaked. This will then show up in increases prices that such firms charge end users. Security ain't free. It's either compelled via law, or via tort. Right now, the 'insurance fee' is tort if enough companies are sued.
- failwhaleshark 5y ago
  Don't go there.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- pyuser583 5y ago
  Most firearm deaths are suicide or a family member injuring themselves. The main victims of gun owners are gun owners. This isn’t a case of externalities.
  - cromwellian 5y ago
    Suicides aren't externalities? Unless the dead person was never going to contribute to society, abrupt deaths do represent a net negative externality. Otherwise, let's perform a little experiment. There's assume the suicide rate increases by a factor of 100. This has no impact on the economy? On society?
    - eindiran 5y ago
      Given the enormous amount of territory you ceded in your retreat to the motte, OP is disincentivized from bothering to attempt gaining any additional ground.
      - cromwellian 5y ago
        The OP assumes that 'victimless' (self-victimized) episodes can't be externalities. False on it's face. When one of your loved ones kills themselves, like your child, or your parents, explain to me why you weren't psychologically harmed and victimized by their act. The original point is that gun ownership increases collective risk, which has an external cost. It does this through increased crime from stolen guns from legal owners, and it does this through self-harm or family harm. No matter how you slice it, you increase gun owners, you increase the suicides, the gun thefts eventually showing up in other crimes, the murder-suicides, and there is scant evidence that the trade off, a hypothetic stoppage of crime by gun ownership, is worth it, especially since the statistics are in dispute with the NRA claiming 2.5 million crimes per year, and scientific authorities saying it's more like 60,000.
        quantified 5y ago
        I can put myself in a gun-owning-and-agreeing-with-the-insurance-idea frame of mind. Given the risk pool and payouts, setting the premium to be for insurance needs and not as a punitive lever seems to be important. The person who uses a stolen gun needs to be primarily liable, this fund should really be a reinsurance fund. If I own a gun, pay premiums, and my child kills themself with it, do I collect the payout? (Sorry if the article covers that point, adblocker preventing from reading it now, I’ll scan the dead tree version tomorrow.)

So car insurance is collective punishment? You own a gun, you increase collective risk. Conservatives hate paying for negative externalities but love positive externalities it seems.

shiohime 5y ago
You should pay a fee and have internet insurance anytime someone commits a cybercrime. Shit it's not even about left/right but rather the government is completely incompetent and cannot protect its citizens so they decide to tax them via "required" insurance if you exercise your right to own a gun? lol.
- cromwellian 5y ago
  Indirectly yes. Online firms should have to carry hacker insurance, and pay a penalty for when they get hacked and personal data is widely leaked. This will then show up in increases prices that such firms charge end users. Security ain't free. It's either compelled via law, or via tort. Right now, the 'insurance fee' is tort if enough companies are sued.
failwhaleshark 5y ago
Don't go there.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pyuser583 5y ago
Most firearm deaths are suicide or a family member injuring themselves. The main victims of gun owners are gun owners. This isn’t a case of externalities.
- cromwellian 5y ago
  Suicides aren't externalities? Unless the dead person was never going to contribute to society, abrupt deaths do represent a net negative externality. Otherwise, let's perform a little experiment. There's assume the suicide rate increases by a factor of 100. This has no impact on the economy? On society?
  - eindiran 5y ago
    Given the enormous amount of territory you ceded in your retreat to the motte, OP is disincentivized from bothering to attempt gaining any additional ground.
    - cromwellian 5y ago
      The OP assumes that 'victimless' (self-victimized) episodes can't be externalities. False on it's face. When one of your loved ones kills themselves, like your child, or your parents, explain to me why you weren't psychologically harmed and victimized by their act. The original point is that gun ownership increases collective risk, which has an external cost. It does this through increased crime from stolen guns from legal owners, and it does this through self-harm or family harm. No matter how you slice it, you increase gun owners, you increase the suicides, the gun thefts eventually showing up in other crimes, the murder-suicides, and there is scant evidence that the trade off, a hypothetic stoppage of crime by gun ownership, is worth it, especially since the statistics are in dispute with the NRA claiming 2.5 million crimes per year, and scientific authorities saying it's more like 60,000.
      - quantified 5y ago
        I can put myself in a gun-owning-and-agreeing-with-the-insurance-idea frame of mind. Given the risk pool and payouts, setting the premium to be for insurance needs and not as a punitive lever seems to be important. The person who uses a stolen gun needs to be primarily liable, this fund should really be a reinsurance fund. If I own a gun, pay premiums, and my child kills themself with it, do I collect the payout? (Sorry if the article covers that point, adblocker preventing from reading it now, I’ll scan the dead tree version tomorrow.)