by David B. Shemano
I knew my statement would cause a problem, but I think the point is valid. You, Charles Brown, subjectively value safety in such a manner that you think the speed limit should be 40 and not 70. I am not sure why your entirely subjective opinion translates into a rule for everybody else. It seems to me that cost/benefit analysis rule-making should ultimately be determined by something other than one person's subjective opinion. ^^^^ CB: What problem did your statement cause ? I can't see where my subjective opinion has translated into a rule for everybody else. The only way it would become a rule would be if a lot of other people had the same opinion. You don't seem to be very much in touch with reality if you think my subjective opinions are being translated into rules for everybody else. Did you think I was on the supreme court or something ? ^^^^^^ >> Why do you assume such facts for a socialist society? We have 75 years of >> experience with socialist inspired economies. Did they place a higher value >> on >> safety compared to comparable capitalist societies? >> >> ^^^^^ >> CB: Well, yea for automobile safety. The Soviet cars were like tanks, which >> , Justin mentioned, would be the direction that you would go to have safer >> cars. They had more mass transportation in the form of omnibuses, trains, >> trolleys than individualized units, as Melvin alluded to as a safer form, >> generally. >> Obviously, there can be train accidents too. Has anybody ever done a comparison of transportation deaths among countries? It might be interesting. ^^^^^^^ CB: Agree ^^^^ >> Were they able to >> implement safety concerns more economically than comparable capitalist >> societies? >> >> ^^^^^ >> CB: Good question. I'm not sure how you would get a comparable capitalist >> society , but if you think my opinion on it is relevant, I'd say a >> comparable capitalist economy for the SU would be someplace like Brazil in >> some senses at some periods. >> >> It's hard because the Soviet Union (and all socialist inspired economies) >> had to put so much economic emphasis on military defense because capitalism >> was constantly invading them or threatening to nuke >> 'em. This throws off all ability to measure from Soviet and socialist >> inspired history what might be the benefits of a peaceful socialist >> development of a regime of safety from our own machines. Cop out. In my experience, there was one example of a socialist inspired car in the capitalist market: the Yugo. Case closed. ^^^^^^ CB: No, profound truth. Yugo was produced _for_ the capitalist market( a sort of redundancy). Case closed. ^^^^^^^ >> It seems to me that safety increases in value as a society becomes >> wealthier, and the value is not correlated to the economic system itself. >> >> ^^^^^ >> CB What do you mean by "safety increases in value" ? I'm not sure human life >> is valued more highly as society gets wealthier. >> >> >> Death and injury by automobile accidents is the main cause of premature >> death in the U.S., isn't it ? Unless we live in Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average, something has to be the main cause of premature deaths, right? What would you propose to be the main cause of premature deaths in lieu of auto accidents? ^^^^^ CB: Of course ,in the long run, we are all dead, but what a prima facie anti-human attitude that says "don't try to figure out a way to reduce auto accident morbidity and mortality." I'd like to see execution for leading imperialist wars, crimes against peace, (as Goerring was executed) be the main cause of premature deaths.
