The only person responsible for this tragedy is the child himself - not his parents, not the pipe owner, and certainly not the government. The choice to do something so obviously dangerous was his and his alone.
Why must every tragedy be automatically used to promote an expansion of government power? What can "the law" really do to prevent such a tragedy from occurring again? Would you force every pipe owner at gunpoint to build a fence? Would you punish parents that don't keep their child on a tight leash? Can you think of any unintended consequences of these coercive acts that would offset their potential benefits? BAD THINGS HAPPEN, and you cannot prevent them by threatening everyone around you with violent punishment. That only makes things worse. ---Sasan --- In [email protected], Steve <dudeschol...@...> wrote: > > One think I don't see discussed much in this group are practical > applications. > > For example, yesterday a preteen kid chose to try to cross a canal in > Utah by walking along a pipe that crossed above that canal, a pipe that > was about 10 inches in diameter. He slipped off into the canal and is > presumed drowned. There was a significant search effort that went on > yesterday with no results and it was stopped for the night and would be > continued today. As of the news last night, no one was then able to > determine who owned the pipe - who was "responsible" for the pipe. > > Now apparently, there are laws in some jurisdictions that require some > sort of barrier at either end of these pipes. Said regulation provides > some protection against the kind of tragic event that occurred yesterday. > > Is regulation the way to go - require barriers - or should the courts be > used? Regulation requires more government and taxes. The courts could > be funded by the litigants. Should the pipe owner have any liability in > this case? Should child safety be completely the responsibility of the > parents and should they be required to fund the cost of the search? > > Shouldn't the fact that someone does something unsafe (cross the pipe, > drink hot coffee while driving, etc.) be their complete responsibility > if they are adults? > > In a libertarian government, would the responsibility for child safety > extend beyond only the parents into the realm of government? Parental > child abuse comes to mind. > > -- > > Steve - dudeschol...@... > > "The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you > run out of Other People's Money." --Margaret Thatcher > > "Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism" > > Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at > http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html >
