5 ms·
In a case like this effective regulation is much more practical, and many libertarians would agree. The purists maintain that the legal liability that should f
by butlerm 4y ago
In a case like this effective regulation is much more practical, and many libertarians would agree. The purists maintain that the legal liability that should follow an accident like this should be sufficient incentive to cause railroad companies to self regulate to avoid it. That seems either not to be the case or railroad companies like this one are not subject to enough liability to deter them from taking excessive risks.
- anotherman554 4y ago"In a case like this effective regulation is much more practical, and many libertarians would agree. " I've never seen a libertarian on the internet support a regulation.
- Mountain_Skies 4y agoThe loudest and most obnoxious of them also tend to be the most extreme. Those with a more nuanced view tend to avoid the label over time as there's no good way to use it to express a desire for less authoritarian government while also rejecting the views of the loud mouth extreme. And perhaps that's a good thing as it gets those with a more moderate view to try to work on those changes that are viable instead of demanding the theoretical perfect.
- Mountain_Skies 4y agoThe problem I have with the liability theory is that you can't undo dead with any amount of money and it's easily possible to create a liability far in excess of what the person or economic entity can ever cover. Plus, not everyone is able to accurately estimate their potential liability for an action, which also can end up creating a liability far in excess of both what they're able to compensate and beyond what they ever conceived to be possible.