Toyota safety crisis prompts 'black box' plan for new cars and lorries
in [Cars]
|
From: Brent on 13 May 2010 15:35 On 2010-05-13, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 13, 8:40�am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 2010-05-13, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On May 12, 11:20�pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) >> > wrote: >> >> In article <0cbd5783-6169-4364-ab23-8e3290929...(a)k2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, >> >> Larry G �<gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >until I know more, I'm not going to disagree.... �but if true - and we >> >> >really don't have a way to deal with this kind of blowout if the >> >> >preventor does fail - then the whole idea of whether or not we should >> >> >be drilling under those conditions is a question. How many more spills >> >> >like this do we want? >> >> >> If your standard is zero risk, you can't accomplish anything at all. >> >> > I totally agree.. but as always the devil is in the details. Does >> > anyone really think that this is not going to lead to a demand for >> > changes? >> >> You want real change? Stop your loving government from using taxpayer >> money to clean up their messes and have them pay for their messes. >> They'll get more careful than you ever dreamed of without regulations. > > Brent - whose going to make them pay? What, you don't trust your loving government's court system? You don't trust your loving government to protect property rights, one of the very very few things it was supposed to do? That's all it has to do. The very basics. If you can't expect them to do that, how in the hell do you think they could ever come up with fair regulation and enforcement that doesn't distort markets? Regulation is several factors of ten more difficult to do properly (assuming a well intentioned competent all knowing government doing it) than protecting property rights.
From: Brent on 13 May 2010 22:12
On 2010-05-13, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 13, 3:35�pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 2010-05-13, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On May 13, 8:40�am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> On 2010-05-13, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On May 12, 11:20�pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> In article <0cbd5783-6169-4364-ab23-8e3290929...(a)k2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >> Larry G �<gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >until I know more, I'm not going to disagree.... �but if true - and we >> >> >> >really don't have a way to deal with this kind of blowout if the >> >> >> >preventor does fail - then the whole idea of whether or not we should >> >> >> >be drilling under those conditions is a question. How many more spills >> >> >> >like this do we want? >> >> >> >> If your standard is zero risk, you can't accomplish anything at all. >> >> >> > I totally agree.. but as always the devil is in the details. Does >> >> > anyone really think that this is not going to lead to a demand for >> >> > changes? >> >> >> You want real change? Stop your loving government from using taxpayer >> >> money to clean up their messes and have them pay for their messes. >> >> They'll get more careful than you ever dreamed of without regulations. >> >> > Brent - whose going to make them pay? >> >> What, you don't trust your loving government's court system? You don't >> trust your loving government to protect property rights, one of the very >> very few things it was supposed to do? That's all it has to do. The very >> basics. If you can't expect them to do that, how in the hell do you >> think they could ever come up with fair regulation and enforcement that >> doesn't distort markets? Regulation is several factors of ten more >> difficult to do properly (assuming a well intentioned competent >> all knowing government doing it) than protecting property rights. > > govt is what it is guy - the world over. If it is more or less > Democratically elected, there is some degree of accountability but > it's a long way from perfect on property rights or regulation as we > all know. Blah blah blah. Just say it, you love being a slave. You love being owned by massa. Accountability? What changed with throwing out democrats for republicans and republicans for democrats? Nothing of any significance. Once every 25 years or so we get something like NMSL repealed. Something minor that took tons and tons of work but nothing significantly changes. If voting could change anything it would be illegal. > But without govt.. those do offshore drilling would likely not be held > accountable at all. You mean big oil's friends in government wouldn't have put a 75 million dollar cap on what they had to pay. > I don't see you offering any kind of a reasonable alternative only a > continuing diatribe against govt and govt regulation. I just did and have several times over. The altnernative to the crony capitalist and fascist system of regulation is freedom and property rights. Your loving government's regulation is what you fell for and accepted after government failed to protect property rights. They fail and you accept giving them more and more power. > You want less govt? Go to a place like Hati or Somalia where the govt > and regulations are minimal and property rights defended by weapons. And finally, the ultimate bullshit argument, 'love it or leave it'. If you had half a clue you'd realize Hati and Somalia and Zimbabwe are representive of the end game of the parasitical system you endorse. If I want to live like that I don't have to go anywhere, I just can sit here and wait. |