[coldtea]

Let's say someone purposefully spits on you. How much compensation, should you personally receive from that hypothetical situation?

Just because some particular damage can't be measured financially or settled with a fine, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

This is especially true about things economists call "externalities", which includes the damage to the environment and things outside direct economic dealing.

[osigurdson]

This is an incredibly flaw analogy. Spitting on someone is a direct assault. Legally owning something unliked by various random people worldwide is not morally equivalent to spitting in someone's face.

[tcfhgj]

Morals are subjective and a function of time.

Just because you don't see it as equivalent, doesn't mean others don't

[osigurdson]

Certainly, people can come up with all manner of perceived injustices. Spitting on someone is considered a crime in many jurisdictions however. It is not the same thing as someone legally owning a vehicle that you do not like.

[chimpanzee]

Perhaps focus on arguing against gp’s conclusion rather than against the analogy.

Meaning, respond to this:

> Just because some particular damage can't be measured financially or settled with a fine, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

This conclusion is applicable regardless of the analogy’s aptness. You obviously don’t like the conclusion. But can you argue against it?

Also, as you seem to be focused on the “buying” rather than the “driving” of a truck, would you be ok with a tax or some other disincentive aimed solely at truck drivers rather than truck buyers?

[tcfhgj]

I don't know how it helps to introduce a legal layer here.

Laws are not only an approximation of morals, but also a compromise among all stakeholders in a country.

As said, it may not be the same thing overall, but morally it can be perceived on a similar level.