3 ms·
Safety standards are not only for you, for the biggest part they are for pedestrians, other vehicles an people that happen to be in the car with you. When Amer
by atoav 2y ago
Safety standards are not only for you, for the biggest part they are for pedestrians, other vehicles an people that happen to be in the car with you.
When Americans complain about the "nanny state" I mentally replace it with "we collectively". Because that is what a state ought to be — a expression of collective will and common sense policy. If it isn't that way in your country currently, that isn't on the state, that is on the people who are supposed to hold the power. Quite frankly, an antagonistic perspective on "the state" might even help it becoming worse.
Collective rules are not needed if anybody just would act informed and reasonable. But that is not the case and never has been the case. Without a state the next-big entity (a company, some local war lord, a gang, a king) will become the force where the buck stops. Unless you want to be at their whim collective and divided power (Rule of Law) is the way to go.
I hope you do realize that what you're saying here could also be read as: "I really wish we (collectively) would let me (individually) make bad decisions that would hurt us (collectively) if everybody (individually) did it". But the ultra-individualistic insistance to not be part of society seems to be very trendy right now, and is usally made by people who rely on society to provide everything to them in ways they aren't even aware about.
- __turbobrew__ 2y agoA hilux champ without collision avoidance sensors is far from the most dangerous thing on the road. I dont like the choice to hamstring millions of businesses and individuals who need legitimate work trucks from having a cheap and reliable option when those trucks would not be even close to the most dangerous thing on the road.
- Dylan16807 2y agoPlease explain why you think that type of car is a danger to others, because otherwise your entire argument doesn't apply.
- atoav 2y agoUnlike you say, my argument is completely unaffected by that premise and could be about an entirely made up hypothetical car, the core ethical argument would still be equally valid. Why? Because the axiom that the car does not meet the safety standards was established by the poster I commented on. I do not need to proof an axiom someone else set up for the sake of discussion. Now you could argue that safety standards are discoupled from actual accident numbers (something I have never seen evidence for), but that is a different argument and thus the burden of proof that this is in fact the case is on you.
- Dylan16807 2y ago> Because the axiom that the car does not meet the safety standards was established by the poster I commented on. You assumed it failed some specific standards, is the problem. That was not part of the premise. It might have failed something completely different.