3 ms·

Not only that. It is not reasonable for people to e.g. test themselves if their food or drink or medicine is not poisoned. That's why laws exist. Likewise, it i

Not only that. It is not reasonable for people to e.g. test themselves if their food or drink or medicine is not poisoned. That's why laws exist. Likewise, it is not reasonable to ask an average person to consider the minutiae of standardised data interchange or open-source modem drivers. That's why laws to protect the user and to protect competition should exist. I've had people unironically say to me (in person) "if you die from drinking tainted liquor your estate can just sue the shop; this is a deterrent so they won't do that".

nine_k 4y ago
> if you die from drinking tainted liquor your estate can just sue the shop I think that would be a right thing to do, and the shop would likely be sued out of existence, with a felony charges for some of the personnel and owners. This is one reason why shops try to keep things sanitary: a customer with an estate to speak of would ruin them if hurt. (But those without an estate may have been hurt for some time with relatively little consequence.) Another reason is, of course, inspections (they don't need to be strictly state-operated, but may have to be state-mandated), where the inspecting agency would sue / fine the shop out of existence if for presence of dangerously tainted liquor. An ounce of prevention, etc.