Comments on: Is There a Minimum Income Necesary to be Responsible? http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/10/is_there_a_mini.html Dispatches from a Small Business Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:39:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Doug Murray http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/10/is_there_a_mini.html/comment-page-1#comment-1907 Doug Murray Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:42:24 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2005/10/is_there_a_mini.html#comment-1907 <p>If Eddy Curry and other "ordinary" people are so incompetent in their personal decisions, should they be permitted to vote on questions that affect the rest of us?</p> <p>On the other side of the coin, perhaps some sanity could be brought to litigation by a statutory presumption that if you are a registered voter, you are also capable of understanding any waiver that you sign.</p> If Eddy Curry and other “ordinary” people are so incompetent in their personal decisions, should they be permitted to vote on questions that affect the rest of us?

On the other side of the coin, perhaps some sanity could be brought to litigation by a statutory presumption that if you are a registered voter, you are also capable of understanding any waiver that you sign.

]]> By: Matt http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/10/is_there_a_mini.html/comment-page-1#comment-1906 Matt Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:37:11 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2005/10/is_there_a_mini.html#comment-1906 <p>Not sure exactly how the second example counts as an adverse effect. I agree that in principle people ought not assume that government is responsible for keeping them safe. But there's a huge gap between people injured in sports and people mauled by bears...consent and assumed risk. And if government agents take actions (like relocating rather than killing a bear, when the bear has already encroached on settled areas before) which knowingly endanger third parties _without their explicit or even implicit consent_, then it seems entirely proper to punish that precisely in order to encourage a more responsible attitude.</p> <p>There's a big difference between requiring a presumption in favor of protecting the safety of innocent bystanders, and refusing to acknowledge assumed risk.</p> Not sure exactly how the second example counts as an adverse effect. I agree that in principle people ought not assume that government is responsible for keeping them safe. But there’s a huge gap between people injured in sports and people mauled by bears…consent and assumed risk. And if government agents take actions (like relocating rather than killing a bear, when the bear has already encroached on settled areas before) which knowingly endanger third parties _without their explicit or even implicit consent_, then it seems entirely proper to punish that precisely in order to encourage a more responsible attitude.

There’s a big difference between requiring a presumption in favor of protecting the safety of innocent bystanders, and refusing to acknowledge assumed risk.

]]>