Homeowner's insurance house inspections

Page 2 of 3  

wrote:

Actually, it's settled constitutional law that the state doesn't HAVE to protect you from anyone.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I didn't say the Constitution required it in every case. I said it is already the obligation of the state to protect us from others.
I hope you can see the difference.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

...
And from what piece of cloth did you weave that obligation from? Apart from being a practical impossibility, that is...we've already demonstrated that the passing of a law doesn't "protect" anybody, it only provides basis in the legal system for recourse for victims or punishment for perpetrators. Like a lock which only keeps the basically honest that way but does virtually nothing against the thief.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

at
The state has no obligation to protect you from anybody. The cops can sit at the donnut shop while you are beaten to death and your wife is raped and nobody can do shit. The courts have repeatedly found no obligation to provide police protection to any particular individual, only to society at large. That translates to the state doesn't have to do shit for you. If you think the state is going to protect you all I can say is lotsa fucking luck hope you don't find out the hard way how wrong ya are.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And you see where that gets us, when we rely on individusala includng the many who don't give a damn about who gets hurt because of them. Drunken drivers, drunks who start fights in bars so that people actually get hurt, people who leave guns around so that their kids shoot visitors, or their own brother or sister. Etc. Etc.
I don't know the best exact boundary for what the law should say about gun locks, but I know that preaching individual responsibility when we already know how many people aren't responsible at all is a bunch of crap.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

...
Well, there's the point made for me precisely--all the laws against drunk driving, etc., don't really mean much do they, unless people take the personal responsibility to not drink and drive. You can't legislate morality and you can't legislate responsibility any more successfully. You can, otoh, with diligence behave responsibily yourself and teach your children and others you come in contact with the rudiments of gun safety and how to act responsibly with them. That effort on one's part includes properly storing them to preclude acquisition of them by unauthorized parties, of course.
You may wish laws were effective in changing behavior, but we have ample evidence that isn't particularly effective, too. How many laws did the guy I heard of on the radio today break in committing his offense(s)? They didn't help much, did they?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

how many more would die without the laws against drunk driving, those numbers have fallen a lot. the harsh penalties help keep us all safer
laws against smoking in public places, protect everyone from secondhand smoke and the bad health effects from it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, maybe, maybe not...
For the period of 1995-2005 (last data reported I could find) total alcohol-related deaths from NTSA figures averaged 17,150 annually. A regression line through the data shows that the slope of the line is -35 +/-42 -- that is, the uncertainty in the slope is greater than the magnitude of the coefficient itself at the one-sigma level -- it isn't significant statistically. Or, in other words, the annual fluctuations in numbers are larger than the tendency for an actual decrease over time.
Consequently, it seems that at best the law has reached an impasse where no measurable improvement is being made despite ever-harsher laws.

This one is pretty easy to avoid on your own if you're so inclined to do so...I'm against those rules against owners of establishments outlawing legal actions by some. If you don't want to partake, fine, that's your pergogative and if you can convince sufficient others, the proprietor will undoubtedly change his policy to recover business. If not, so be it.
But, my point wasn't that we should do away with laws but that laws are really only for dealing with a situation _after_ a person has already taken an action. Passing more laws doesn't change fundamental behavior for a large segment of the population who are the ones who are breaking the law in the first place. The desire to control any and all behavior of whatever level of deemed malevolence to inconvenience is a propensity of many it seems, but should be resisted as unwarranted excursion into our basic liberties for one and as being mostly ineffectual for the latter.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

anti smoking laws are largely to protect the employees, who need a job but can get ill from second hand smoke.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What happened to the drunk-driving stiffer legislation argument? :)
As for the anti-smoking, that was a ploy/tactic used in getting them passed, certainly. My opinion is the employees do have choice in where they choose to work and the same market forces should prevail -- if the employer can't find help for the reason stated, they can make do w/ what they do get or change their policy.
Again, my whole purpose is to try to raise awareness against the practice of trying to legislate everything away with the false hope that creating a law against something will make that something disappear. These are just examples...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

well certinally if in the case of tobacco taxes are raised enough while laws are passed making it illegal to smoke in any public place, less smoking will occur...............
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Have you any data like I found from the NTSA on alcohol-related traffic deaths to substantiate that wishful thinking as well? :)
Do you not see the irony in government (at all levels) becoming more and more dependent on the tobacco revenues while at the same time saying they're against tobacco usage? Label cynical, but I see it as disengenuous at best, duplicitous in fact.
The point remains laws such as these are bound to fail to have the promised benefits of mass changes in public behavior. Think prohibition for the model.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It has to do with how politicians think. If they pass laws, then they have the appearance of caring for the people and taking action. They don't really think about whether the laws work or not. Actually, I think that some do and know that their laws won't do much - but they enact them all the same. For fear of becoming a broken record - education works 1000 times better then laws do.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We keep our guns in a locked safe. We don't permit children in our home. Leave us alone.
Cindy Hamilton
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I keep my guns locked up also. I take them out regularly and teach my children how to use them properly and safely. Proper gun control is teaching your children how to use them safely, how to hit what they aim at, and when to shoot and when not to shoot. *That* is how you prevent accidents. Education, not laws, rules, and regulations.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:28:50 -0700, "Ook" <Ook Don't send me any freakin' spam at zootal dot com delete the Don't send me any freakin' spam> wrote:

That was long ago proven to be a fallacy. KIds who have been "taught to use guns safely" tend to think they know what they are doing, but they are too young to have the necessary judgement. Education in tis case, only gives a false sense of competency.
CWM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Interesting assertion, but I don't beleive it. Got any supporting evidence or a cite, or are you just making this up?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Deal with it. No, I can't give you a cite, as it was many years ago. I know what I know. Prove me wrong.
CWM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I do not believe this was ever proven to be a fallacy. As I child I was taught to use a gun safely, and my own children know how to use a gun safely. It is the responsibility of the adult to keep guns from children that are not old enough to have the necessary judgement to use a gun safely, just as it's the responsibility of gun owning adults to teach children gun safety. And lastly, if the education gives a false sense of competency, the education itself was faulty. Proper education does not give a false sense of competency.
Education, not laws, rules, and regulations.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 12, 6:21?pm, "Ook" <Ook Don't send me any freakin' spam at zootal dot com delete the Don't send me any freakin' spam> wrote:

still leaving the guns accesible, one of their friends might even kill your son or daughter, by accident.
kids just dont have the necessary judgement
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.