3 ms·
This is not an argument against allowing the freedom of choice of how to spend my money and time. If I want more risk, I should absolutely have it. What you're
by snitko 12y ago
This is not an argument against allowing the freedom of choice of how to spend my money and time. If I want more risk, I should absolutely have it. What you're saying is like saying "if you surf and get bitten by a shark, you would start reconsidering your attitude towards surfing, thinking maybe you shouldn't have gotten into the water in the first place". Should we ban surfing on the grounds that some people may actually regret it?
The point is to allow people to make their own choices. What you're advocating is depriving people of the choice of how to spend their money and manage their risk/reward options.
- Tomte 12y agoIn your surfing example the surfer is at risk. That's not what we're discussing here. You want other people to suffer a higher risk, just so you can save money. And no matter how often you try to frame it as a matter of "I choose for myself", you're actually choosing for others. That's highly illiberal and unfree, by the way.
- brokenmusic 12y agoSo, let's leave out the insurance question and separate it from the taxi-licence issue. Provided that all cars are insured, how am I putting other people at risk by riding a cheaper unlicensed taxi?