Dear Bell,
Ok. You have made your point. You hate us. We don't subscribe to your TV service because you charge way too much for it. We use VOIP phones because, again, you charge way to much for your phone lines, and we use alternate ISPs because your internet it too expensive. I get it. We aren't lining your pockets with cash and providing you with all those nice cars you need to have and you hate us for it. Fine. I can live with that. But are you sure that being as obnoxious as you possibly can to people, and forcing down monopolistic, anti-competive, irresponsible, and irrational rules on us is going to make us suddenly want to give you more money? Perhaps you like giving money to people that are doing their best to prevent you from doing what you want to, but I don't. I want to use my internet connection to watch movies. I want to use it to view stuff on youtube, maybe even on more than one computer at the same time (*gasp*). I want to stream music. I want to play games. I want to work from home. I want to watch sports. I want to download and upload pictures. I want to use Facebook. I want to use Skype (with video even!). I want to have more than one computer hooked up to my connection. And what do you want to do? You want to force me to use only 25 gigs of data a month. You want to force me to fit into your pretty little 'cash cow' picture and make sure that I am always a cash cow. You want to make sure that I keep your mattress stuffed with money so that you can sleep at night knowing that you have accomplished a good days work and prevented millions of us from doing what we want.
Do you really think this is a good business strategy? I grew up on a farm, and we would plant less profitable crops sometimes. Why? Because we wanted to make less money? No, of course not. We did it because it was a good long term strategy. It kept the land good and kept the money coming in in the future. The same principle applies here. Maybe you will make more money in the short term, but do you really think that kicking your cash cow repeatedly to make it give more milk is a good long term strategy? You better be careful where you step, because these cash cows may just give you a good hard kick in the tail and send you for a ride that could take you a long time to heal from.
I know it can be hard to adjust to a new business climate (and I'm not being sarcastic there), but you really need to figure out a way to do. Let the TV model go. It can't last forever, even if you have the government in bed with you. Look to the future. Meet the needs and desires of your customers and you can continue to be a successful and profitable industry. I have no problem with you making a buck, just do it the right way. Do it by giving consumers what they want and need, and not by stabbing them in the back to protect some outdated idea of where your profits should come from. I know it must hurt to see people using the internet for their phone and TV and reducing that income source for you, but look at the other side! The internet opens up all kinds of opportunities. Leverage those. Use you business skills and marketing sense to find new markets. A company that is stuck in the past will be left in the past and unless you make some radical changes in direction I look forward to the day when your company will be a blip in the history books.
Signed,
a bruised cash cow
Showing posts with label Rants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rants. Show all posts
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Monday, December 13, 2010
Things That Make me Roll my Eyes - Miles of Government Regulations
Why does the government feel it need to regulate every aspect of our lives? Are we too stupid to think for ourselves? Every time a new bill comes out it seems to be at least 200+ pages long, meaning of course, that nobody will even be able to read through it all. I wonder if regulations in this country aren't just designed to create work for bureaucrats. One writes it so another can read it and then write something even more confusing to keep each other in work. Of course excessive propagation of laws also gives people the chance to find some obscure law that you are breaking if they don't like you. I think this story illustrates that point quite well. To often the regulations in our country are used for personal vendetta's or to give government officials something to point too when the amount of money going to their department is in question.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
State of the Union
Just for you Lynnette :-P
I'm alive.
Almost done my final term of school!!
Life is good.
Soo...The other night I was watching the State of the Union address and I was struck by a few things. The environmental stuff is a bit scary because everyone is just getting on the bandwagon and forgetting to take their brains with them and think through this stuff and how it is going to affect the country.
Another thing that I found a bit worrisome was the "stimulation package" that is supposed to help reduce the effects of the coming recession. Why am I worried about it when it involves things like tax cuts (which I like :)? simply because tax cuts without corresponding budget cuts are not tax cuts at all but merely tax deferrals. Also, stimulation ultimately won't correct the economic problems that have led to a recession, and they may in fact make it worse in the long run. The government can't create jobs and productivity (i.e. as much as some people would like you to believe to the contrary, the government is not God, and so it cannot create wealth out of nothing...all it can do is artificially redistribute(and waste)wealth). The whole speech talked about how we need to trust the people, so lets trust them to do what is best. Let people make their own decisions without clouding reality over with an artificial 'stimulation package' that is only going to fool people into doing something that really doesn't make sense. This may prop up the economy for a period of time; however, eventually people will catch on to what is really going on at which point the recession will hit harder than ever.
Oh and a little advice here. Don't believe the talking heads on TV who try to tell you that you have a moral responsibility to spend money in order to spend our way out of a recession. Investing your money stimulates the economy just as much as buying a new computer with it does. Either way you are contributing to new jobs since that invested money is used by someone to start a business or build a house or something else that stimulates economic growth. You have no moral duty to spend your way out of a recession, and savings can help you get through it. Don't forget that savings are a good thing to have :)
One other note: Stop and think about what aid to Africa really means in terms of ending poverty.
It wasn't all negative though. I really liked Bush's stand again 'Pork barrel' or special interest funding.
There I posted. Happy? :)
Dave Westy
I'm alive.
Almost done my final term of school!!
Life is good.
Soo...The other night I was watching the State of the Union address and I was struck by a few things. The environmental stuff is a bit scary because everyone is just getting on the bandwagon and forgetting to take their brains with them and think through this stuff and how it is going to affect the country.
Another thing that I found a bit worrisome was the "stimulation package" that is supposed to help reduce the effects of the coming recession. Why am I worried about it when it involves things like tax cuts (which I like :)? simply because tax cuts without corresponding budget cuts are not tax cuts at all but merely tax deferrals. Also, stimulation ultimately won't correct the economic problems that have led to a recession, and they may in fact make it worse in the long run. The government can't create jobs and productivity (i.e. as much as some people would like you to believe to the contrary, the government is not God, and so it cannot create wealth out of nothing...all it can do is artificially redistribute(and waste)wealth). The whole speech talked about how we need to trust the people, so lets trust them to do what is best. Let people make their own decisions without clouding reality over with an artificial 'stimulation package' that is only going to fool people into doing something that really doesn't make sense. This may prop up the economy for a period of time; however, eventually people will catch on to what is really going on at which point the recession will hit harder than ever.
Oh and a little advice here. Don't believe the talking heads on TV who try to tell you that you have a moral responsibility to spend money in order to spend our way out of a recession. Investing your money stimulates the economy just as much as buying a new computer with it does. Either way you are contributing to new jobs since that invested money is used by someone to start a business or build a house or something else that stimulates economic growth. You have no moral duty to spend your way out of a recession, and savings can help you get through it. Don't forget that savings are a good thing to have :)
One other note: Stop and think about what aid to Africa really means in terms of ending poverty.
It wasn't all negative though. I really liked Bush's stand again 'Pork barrel' or special interest funding.
There I posted. Happy? :)
Dave Westy
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Global Warming Part I: The Science?
This has been rattling around in my head for some time now, but as I was writing this up I found I had far too much to say for one post and so I've broken this down into a multi-part series. Part I is about the science behind the whole Global Warming fad.
Global warming has become the hot topic of the day. It seems hardly a day goes by that we don't hear something about it in the news and politicians are going on and on about it and what we should do about it. Usually this takes the form of regulating carbon emissions and many countries and states have already put in place restrictions on these emissions. A lot of people are very worried about global warming and what it will do to us all, so much so that a group of politicians got together and decided to enact something call the Kyoto Protocol which requires assenting nations to greatly reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. But what exactly is all the hype about? Should we really be getting all worked up about global warming and be spending trillions of dollars in an attempt to curb it? I think not. Let me explain why.
First of all it's poor science. Well actually to be more precise, it is not science at all. You see, science involves using the scientific method to arrive at a conclusion. This means it needs two key things: observable and measurable evidence, and repeatability. Thus for example something like the law of gravity is scientific. We can observe what happens when we drop something and we can measure the acceleration change and we can do this over and over and over again making us extremely certain that this law holds true.
Global warming on the other hand does not involve repeatability of any kind since it is merely conjecture about the the future. Also, It only involves evidence insofar as it extrapolates far beyond what is mathematically and scientifically acceptable, and it ignores true evidence in that most of the parameters in models have to be guessed at or estimated since we cannot now everything about our climate. It is far to complicated for even the most powerful computers to come even close to calculating the effect of every parameter, without even considering the fact that we are far from know what exactly all these effects are. Let me briefly illustrate this fact. There is something that is known as the butterfly effect I know that link is quite technical but the point of what I'm trying to show you is that potentially every flutter of a butterfly's wings can have a huge effect on the weather and thus unless our models account for every flutter of every butterfly's wing, ever bird that flies, every man and animal and plant and fish that moves on this earth, unless it accounts for every fluctuation in the sun's energy output, unless it accounts for all the forest fires and volcanoes, unless it accounts for so many parameters that we can never know, it will not be truly accurate. The question is how accurate do we have to be to have a reasonable model? How much stuff can we ignore and how much do we need to include? We don't know. We are missing the repeatability factor and so much of what is done is just educated guesswork. The parameters used and the weight they are given in the models is guesswork. The model designers use the parameters they think matter the most and then assign them the values they think they will have.
Now of course we don't need to know any of these things to be able to say that global warming will happen. If, for example, we were to look at global temperatures and say that for the last 500 year the temperature has always gone up be 0.01 degrees per year we would be able to say with a large degree of certainty that it will continue to do so. However to look at the approximately 30 years of data that we have indicating a global warming trend and extrapolate that into the next 100+ years is HORRIBLE science. I would receive an instant F if I tried to do anything of that sort on a lab or assignment. With only 30 years of data you cannot extrapolate more than 5 years into the future and still have any degree of certainty. For example if we were to look at the 30 year warming trend that occurred from ~1915-1945 we would predict that average world temps would be about 1 degree F higher than they are right now. We can't use the data that we have to extrapolate into the future until we have much more of it.
Therefore, we see that since the whole global warming theory relies on simplified parameter inputs (and therefore is highly susceptible to the preconceptions and assumptions of the person creating the model and entering the parameters) and also has no repeatability and cannot be verified or tested it is not true science.
Coming next: The consensus?
Global warming has become the hot topic of the day. It seems hardly a day goes by that we don't hear something about it in the news and politicians are going on and on about it and what we should do about it. Usually this takes the form of regulating carbon emissions and many countries and states have already put in place restrictions on these emissions. A lot of people are very worried about global warming and what it will do to us all, so much so that a group of politicians got together and decided to enact something call the Kyoto Protocol which requires assenting nations to greatly reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. But what exactly is all the hype about? Should we really be getting all worked up about global warming and be spending trillions of dollars in an attempt to curb it? I think not. Let me explain why.
First of all it's poor science. Well actually to be more precise, it is not science at all. You see, science involves using the scientific method to arrive at a conclusion. This means it needs two key things: observable and measurable evidence, and repeatability. Thus for example something like the law of gravity is scientific. We can observe what happens when we drop something and we can measure the acceleration change and we can do this over and over and over again making us extremely certain that this law holds true.
Global warming on the other hand does not involve repeatability of any kind since it is merely conjecture about the the future. Also, It only involves evidence insofar as it extrapolates far beyond what is mathematically and scientifically acceptable, and it ignores true evidence in that most of the parameters in models have to be guessed at or estimated since we cannot now everything about our climate. It is far to complicated for even the most powerful computers to come even close to calculating the effect of every parameter, without even considering the fact that we are far from know what exactly all these effects are. Let me briefly illustrate this fact. There is something that is known as the butterfly effect I know that link is quite technical but the point of what I'm trying to show you is that potentially every flutter of a butterfly's wings can have a huge effect on the weather and thus unless our models account for every flutter of every butterfly's wing, ever bird that flies, every man and animal and plant and fish that moves on this earth, unless it accounts for every fluctuation in the sun's energy output, unless it accounts for all the forest fires and volcanoes, unless it accounts for so many parameters that we can never know, it will not be truly accurate. The question is how accurate do we have to be to have a reasonable model? How much stuff can we ignore and how much do we need to include? We don't know. We are missing the repeatability factor and so much of what is done is just educated guesswork. The parameters used and the weight they are given in the models is guesswork. The model designers use the parameters they think matter the most and then assign them the values they think they will have.
Now of course we don't need to know any of these things to be able to say that global warming will happen. If, for example, we were to look at global temperatures and say that for the last 500 year the temperature has always gone up be 0.01 degrees per year we would be able to say with a large degree of certainty that it will continue to do so. However to look at the approximately 30 years of data that we have indicating a global warming trend and extrapolate that into the next 100+ years is HORRIBLE science. I would receive an instant F if I tried to do anything of that sort on a lab or assignment. With only 30 years of data you cannot extrapolate more than 5 years into the future and still have any degree of certainty. For example if we were to look at the 30 year warming trend that occurred from ~1915-1945 we would predict that average world temps would be about 1 degree F higher than they are right now. We can't use the data that we have to extrapolate into the future until we have much more of it.
Therefore, we see that since the whole global warming theory relies on simplified parameter inputs (and therefore is highly susceptible to the preconceptions and assumptions of the person creating the model and entering the parameters) and also has no repeatability and cannot be verified or tested it is not true science.
Coming next: The consensus?
Friday, October 20, 2006
More on Seatbelts
Well, well well, who would have guessed that seatbelts are so exciting they warrent two posts on this blog? I want to fist of all say thank you to all those that posted comments on my last post, they have been really helpful to me in seeing where the weaknesses in my argument are and in seeing where I am being misunderstood. I'm not always so good at expressing what I mean and your comments help me figure out what assumptions I have that I need to make more articulate and where I need to smack myself on the head and say, 'duh, what were you thinking Dave?'
So, a little clarification on what I was saying in my last post, this time having spent a little time thinking about it instead of just spouting some thoughts off the top of my head. I still stand by my original point in that I think the government should not be considering this type of legislation and that to do so is put its hands where they don't belong, but I want to expand and clarify why exactly I think so. First of all I want to talk about my argument that this legislation will discriminate against the poor. This statement is in fact true. People with less money have less vehicles per person and so are more likely to overcrowd a vehicle with more occupants than seatbelts, and hence this law affect one group (poor people) more than another group (the wealthy) and thus is discriminatory. However, discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing (for example I could have a very disciminatory taste in wines)and the fact that a law influences one group more than another says nothing at all about the propriety or acceptability of that law. The reason I included this argument in the first place was that most of the politicians that support this law would be against the idea of discrimination and so their support of this law is illogical, however, if someone was to use this argument against a law I liked I would dismiss it out of hand and so I should not use it myself. My apologies for a poor use of terminology.
Also, it seems that there is some disagreement as to how much this law would actually cost society. I personally think that it would be expensive because anything that the government gets its fingers into ends up costing us (as well as for a number of other reason that I can share if you really want me too) but without having actual numbers it is pretty much useless to argue about this point, although I do think that the government should try to understand the cost of its legislation versus the benifits that will be gained by it. It is true that its hard to put a price on human life but there comes a point where it is outrageous to keep spending money for the possibliity of extending someone's life by a few years.
However, those points were not at all the main idea that I was trying to get across, they were more like extra points of consideration, while the main thrust of what I was saying was that the government needs to keep out of stuff that is not its business. Let me say first of all that I have no problem with seatbelts. I think they are a great invention and I wear mine as a matter of habit. I think it is foolish not to wear one without good reason and I have no doubt that they do help protect you in case of an accident. What I am arguing against here is seatbelt LAWS, particularily trying to stop someone from riding in a vehicle that has more occupant than there are seatbelts in that vehicle. I certainly agree that to do so is more dangerous than not; after all I did link to an article where 4 people where killed in just that situation. My problem is not that it is a dangerous activity, it is that the government has absolutly no right at all to tell me what level of danger is acceptable for me. I am a responsible adult and am quite aware that I would be putting myself in a higher risk situation, and I don't need some allknowing government to tell me that I can't. I am reponsible for my actions (even God's soveriegnty doesn't abdicate me of that responsibilty) and to try and pawn that responsibily off onto the government is utterly rediculous. If I choose to ride in a car with more people than seatbelts, I am responible for anything that happens to me, not the government. It doesn't matter how 'stupid' I may be for not wearing it, I am still the one that is responsible for my actions and not the government. The government may not tell me how safely I have to live my life because to do so overstep its realm of authority.
I suppose that is the crux of the argument: when can the government tell me what to do and when does it need to stay out of my life? There are some areas where the government is obviously allowed (and required) to tell me what to do, for example it has every right to tell me not to kill you for disagreing with me, but there are also areas where it just as obviously does not have control over me, for example in telling me what kind of toothpaste I need to use tonight. The problem is discovering what sets the line. What is it that determines wether or not the government has jurisdiction over a particular activity? What exactly is the role of government in society? As Ruth pointed out, the role of government is to punish evil and approve of good (see Romans 13). This does not mean punish evil and mandate good, but punish evil and approve of or encourage good. Thus it is appropriate for the government to forbid and punish murder as being a sinful action, but it is not appropriate for it to require me to use only Crest toothpaste, even if there were studies that indicated that it better for my health to use Crest than any other kind of toothpaste. It might be a good thing for me to use only Crest toothpaste but the government would be overstepping its authourity to require me to use it.
So what about seatbelts? Is it immoral to put more people in a car than available seatbelts? No, of course not. It is no more immoral than going snowboarding or parasailing or walking on the side of the road or doing any other activity that increases your chance of getting hurt or killed. Thus the government is overstepping the bounds of its authority in trying to pass this type of legislation.
That is the gist of what I was trying to say in my last post. I hope this helps clear up any confusion. Keep the comments coming and enjoy your weekend
Dave Westy
So, a little clarification on what I was saying in my last post, this time having spent a little time thinking about it instead of just spouting some thoughts off the top of my head. I still stand by my original point in that I think the government should not be considering this type of legislation and that to do so is put its hands where they don't belong, but I want to expand and clarify why exactly I think so. First of all I want to talk about my argument that this legislation will discriminate against the poor. This statement is in fact true. People with less money have less vehicles per person and so are more likely to overcrowd a vehicle with more occupants than seatbelts, and hence this law affect one group (poor people) more than another group (the wealthy) and thus is discriminatory. However, discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing (for example I could have a very disciminatory taste in wines)and the fact that a law influences one group more than another says nothing at all about the propriety or acceptability of that law. The reason I included this argument in the first place was that most of the politicians that support this law would be against the idea of discrimination and so their support of this law is illogical, however, if someone was to use this argument against a law I liked I would dismiss it out of hand and so I should not use it myself. My apologies for a poor use of terminology.
Also, it seems that there is some disagreement as to how much this law would actually cost society. I personally think that it would be expensive because anything that the government gets its fingers into ends up costing us (as well as for a number of other reason that I can share if you really want me too) but without having actual numbers it is pretty much useless to argue about this point, although I do think that the government should try to understand the cost of its legislation versus the benifits that will be gained by it. It is true that its hard to put a price on human life but there comes a point where it is outrageous to keep spending money for the possibliity of extending someone's life by a few years.
However, those points were not at all the main idea that I was trying to get across, they were more like extra points of consideration, while the main thrust of what I was saying was that the government needs to keep out of stuff that is not its business. Let me say first of all that I have no problem with seatbelts. I think they are a great invention and I wear mine as a matter of habit. I think it is foolish not to wear one without good reason and I have no doubt that they do help protect you in case of an accident. What I am arguing against here is seatbelt LAWS, particularily trying to stop someone from riding in a vehicle that has more occupant than there are seatbelts in that vehicle. I certainly agree that to do so is more dangerous than not; after all I did link to an article where 4 people where killed in just that situation. My problem is not that it is a dangerous activity, it is that the government has absolutly no right at all to tell me what level of danger is acceptable for me. I am a responsible adult and am quite aware that I would be putting myself in a higher risk situation, and I don't need some allknowing government to tell me that I can't. I am reponsible for my actions (even God's soveriegnty doesn't abdicate me of that responsibilty) and to try and pawn that responsibily off onto the government is utterly rediculous. If I choose to ride in a car with more people than seatbelts, I am responible for anything that happens to me, not the government. It doesn't matter how 'stupid' I may be for not wearing it, I am still the one that is responsible for my actions and not the government. The government may not tell me how safely I have to live my life because to do so overstep its realm of authority.
I suppose that is the crux of the argument: when can the government tell me what to do and when does it need to stay out of my life? There are some areas where the government is obviously allowed (and required) to tell me what to do, for example it has every right to tell me not to kill you for disagreing with me, but there are also areas where it just as obviously does not have control over me, for example in telling me what kind of toothpaste I need to use tonight. The problem is discovering what sets the line. What is it that determines wether or not the government has jurisdiction over a particular activity? What exactly is the role of government in society? As Ruth pointed out, the role of government is to punish evil and approve of good (see Romans 13). This does not mean punish evil and mandate good, but punish evil and approve of or encourage good. Thus it is appropriate for the government to forbid and punish murder as being a sinful action, but it is not appropriate for it to require me to use only Crest toothpaste, even if there were studies that indicated that it better for my health to use Crest than any other kind of toothpaste. It might be a good thing for me to use only Crest toothpaste but the government would be overstepping its authourity to require me to use it.
So what about seatbelts? Is it immoral to put more people in a car than available seatbelts? No, of course not. It is no more immoral than going snowboarding or parasailing or walking on the side of the road or doing any other activity that increases your chance of getting hurt or killed. Thus the government is overstepping the bounds of its authority in trying to pass this type of legislation.
That is the gist of what I was trying to say in my last post. I hope this helps clear up any confusion. Keep the comments coming and enjoy your weekend
Dave Westy
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Seatbelts
There was a fatal crash in Toronto this weekend. Apparently 10 Koreans were riding in a minivan, which of course means that there were more people than seat belts, and so now; 'Ontario moved swiftly yesterday to close a loophole in the province's 30-year-old seat-belt law' by introducing legislation that requires there be no more passengers than seat belts in a vehicle. This is a wonderful new development isn't it? Seat belts save lives, and so anything that forces people to wear their seat belts more is a good thing isn't it? Well, as you might have guessed, I think there is another side to the story and so I would like to present you with a few of the reasons that I think this move is another example of how our government runs on 'feel good' principles instead of 'do good' principles.
1. Its my life. If I want to go bungee jumping, or skydiving, or work as a crane operator or do any other high risk activity I am free to do so. Why? because it is my life and I am free to decide what level of risk is acceptable. If I am allowed to place myself in additional risk for my pleasure or convenience with these kind of activities why not with packing more people into my car?
2. It discriminates against the poor. You might have 2 cars to choose from every time you want to go riding but I might not have that luxury and cramming 8 people into my goe metro might be the only way I can get the whole family around. Ok sure I could make two trips but I'm poor remember? I can't afford the gas.
3. It makes for good rhetoric, but not necessarily good sense. It sounds really good to talk about how we are going to save lives, and how it is all worth it if we even save one life but that is not necessarily true. There are risks in life that we have to live with,and it hard to decide what is acceptable risk. We will never get rid of all risk in life and so we have to make decisions as to what is acceptable risk. Is it acceptable to drive a car at all? even with seat belts people still die in car wrecks. Is it an acceptable risk to get out of bed in the morning? There is no way some generic law can come up with what is acceptable risk because it is different for each person. Let me decide what is an acceptable level of risk, it'll save us all a lot of money in trying to enforce a useless law.
4. Speaking of money: Its going to cost a lot of money to come up with the law, to make the legislation, and to enforce it. Is this money well spent? we have already established that it is hard to decide what level of risk is acceptable, but what about quantifying the risk itself? I haven't seen any numbers, but I suspect the benefit is marginal. Most people that are going to wear a seat belt already do and changing legislation won't change that. You see proliferating laws doesn't solve problems. The laws have to address actual problems and have to make sense.
Dave Westy
1. Its my life. If I want to go bungee jumping, or skydiving, or work as a crane operator or do any other high risk activity I am free to do so. Why? because it is my life and I am free to decide what level of risk is acceptable. If I am allowed to place myself in additional risk for my pleasure or convenience with these kind of activities why not with packing more people into my car?
2. It discriminates against the poor. You might have 2 cars to choose from every time you want to go riding but I might not have that luxury and cramming 8 people into my goe metro might be the only way I can get the whole family around. Ok sure I could make two trips but I'm poor remember? I can't afford the gas.
3. It makes for good rhetoric, but not necessarily good sense. It sounds really good to talk about how we are going to save lives, and how it is all worth it if we even save one life but that is not necessarily true. There are risks in life that we have to live with,and it hard to decide what is acceptable risk. We will never get rid of all risk in life and so we have to make decisions as to what is acceptable risk. Is it acceptable to drive a car at all? even with seat belts people still die in car wrecks. Is it an acceptable risk to get out of bed in the morning? There is no way some generic law can come up with what is acceptable risk because it is different for each person. Let me decide what is an acceptable level of risk, it'll save us all a lot of money in trying to enforce a useless law.
4. Speaking of money: Its going to cost a lot of money to come up with the law, to make the legislation, and to enforce it. Is this money well spent? we have already established that it is hard to decide what level of risk is acceptable, but what about quantifying the risk itself? I haven't seen any numbers, but I suspect the benefit is marginal. Most people that are going to wear a seat belt already do and changing legislation won't change that. You see proliferating laws doesn't solve problems. The laws have to address actual problems and have to make sense.
Dave Westy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)