- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 6,820
- Reaction score
- 3,807
- Location
- UK
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The actual question is flawed. Government (or anybody else) can’t stop people making deadly decisions. All the laws and taxation in the world can’t cure stupid and we can’t entirely predict which decisions will actually be deadly. Government can discourage potentially deadly (and otherwise harmful) acts and they can also implement measures to reduce environmental risks in general. For example, government has laws requiring driving licences, banning drink-driving and enforcing seat-belt use. They also regulate the quality of roads, pedestrian crossings and road markings and the like. That doesn’t stop negligent drivers killing people but it will generally reduce the risk.
The thread title is also flawed though. This isn’t about some calculation of a number of deaths than is considered acceptable. No deaths are acceptable but equally some deaths are inevitable. Government has a role in seeking to reduce and mitigate risk (and do individual citizens and private organisations of course) but there will always be a fundamental conflict between my right to do what I want and your right not to be harmed by my decisions.
The thread title is also flawed though. This isn’t about some calculation of a number of deaths than is considered acceptable. No deaths are acceptable but equally some deaths are inevitable. Government has a role in seeking to reduce and mitigate risk (and do individual citizens and private organisations of course) but there will always be a fundamental conflict between my right to do what I want and your right not to be harmed by my decisions.