From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Keywords: Helmet Laws, Drug Laws, etc.
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:57:39 GMT

In article <lihr6aINNce5@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

>PANDAMAN) writes:
>|> Robert Dinse) writes...
>|> 
>|>                 [some stuff deleted]
>|> 
>|> >     Society SHOULD be responsible for protecting YOU from ME and ME from
>|> >YOU, society should not be responsible for protecting me from myself.  If we
>|> >decide, as a society, that the costs of bad choices are not worth bearing,
>|> >then perhaps we should just refuse to bear those costs.  I'm sorry, you
>|> >scattered your brains all over the pavement as a result of decisions you made,
>|> >that's too bad, if you die you die.
>|> 
>|> And this is precisely why we find ourselves with these silly laws. Our 
>|> society will never allow individuals to bear the consequences of their 
>|> individual choices.
>|> 
>As long as the two of you keep communicating at esoteric levels of black
>and white, you will have a good time but accomplish little.  The real
>question is what data a vendor is required to provide to allow you to 
>make good/bad decisions.
>
>If I make a cereal and put enought arsenic in it that one bowl kills you,
>should society be responsible to set rules that make me mark the box
>poison?  Did you make a stupid decision to eat the cereal even though its
>contents were kept secret from you?  What if it takes one bowl a day for
>30 straight days? How about one bowl a day for 5 years?

       A product which, when used correctly, causes harm to the user should 
open the maker to immense liability if they don't provide appropiate notice.

>The ladder example is always a good one.  I hear complaints that ladder
>companies have to label the ladder saying that you should not use the
>top rung.  Why the hell is the rung there if it should be obvious that
>it is not safe to use it?  

       You aren't supposed to *stand* on the top rung.  It's perfectly safe 
to *hold onto* the top rung, or *hang* something on the top rung.

>Not everyone is a rocket scientist.  Not
>is as smart as you are.  You probably still make a few stupid moves 
>(I know I do).  But should ladder manufacturers be able to make a 5
>foot ladder look like a 6 foot ladder by adding an unsafe rung?

        The rung is not unsafe.  It's simply not designed to have someone 
stand on it.  That's why it says, "Don't stand on the top rung."

>Especially a rung that looks like all the safe ones?
>
>It all breaks down to how you define bad choices.  It is society,
>laws, and courts that end up having to call the close ones.  As long
>as you two keep discussing the obvious ones, you've missed the
>entire point of having a society.

       There is no "point to having a society."  It's not something you can 
weigh the choices and decide, "Yep, having a society is a good idea."  

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.individualism,rec.bicycles,talk.politics.misc