[valarauca1]

>If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence.

No but you should be properly insured and bonded to prevent client liability. You can argue Laissez-faire, but we tried that in the 1860-1890's and it really sucked. We collectively decided individual safety is worth more then a fatter wallet.

Your argument works from an Objectivist stand point, but Objectivism doesn't work in the real world.

[humanrebar]

Nothing about laissez-faire precludes insurance and bonding. If anything the very non-laissez-faire phenomenon of bankruptcy is what makes an insurance mandate necessary. Not that I'm against bankruptcy laws in general. I'm just pointing out that personal liability is hardly unregulated.

[valarauca1]

Arguing that personal liability laws already exist and can enforce this system is technically true. But you first have to concede that a cash settlement is potentially worth brain damage, loss of vision, loss of limbs, loss of family members, etc.

Therefore a potential liability lawsuit will result in no net economic gain, but restoring what you already had (I.E.: How much is your SO's life actually worth to you?). If you don't concede this fact, then every single instance of the situation correcting itself, I.E.: Crash and law suit, will result in a net loss to the community GDP and private loss of money. The service can have no economic value what so ever to the seller, or purchaser on a macro scale, its just becomes Russian Roulette as a service.

The issue with Randian Objectivism is it normalizes human death to solve micro economic problems.

[humanrebar]

No, everyone and every system puts a price on human life. The only question is who decides what cost is worth it.

We could basically eliminate car accidents tomorrow through extreme measures. We could lower speed limits to walking speeds, cover all vehicles in cushions, and require everyone to hire the services of a (licensed and bonded) crossing guard before crossing the street. If it saves one life or debilitating injury, isn't it worth it? Obviously not.

So at the end of the day, someone is balancing things like time, money, and effort with safety. The only question is who should decide what a reasonable cost is. I would argue that, given the right tools, you are better at protecting your family than whoever runs the taxi commission, DMV, or even the city council.

Reasonable people can disagree on what a reasonable cost is. They can disagree on who makes the decision and how. But it's not reasonable to jump into polemics about who has a morally superior worldview.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Randian, so I don't care to defend Randian mistakes, but I disagree with your logic on this point.

[valarauca1]

I failed to correctly express my opinion. You are correct to jump on that. And you are correct in your argument.

I've editted the post to more correctly express my opinion (namely the last sentence).

[donatj]

Replying to the other reply that exceeds the max depth one can reply directly to, to imply "human life" is somehow a magical infinitely valuable commodity is childishly naive. Human life is just an electrochemical reaction and like everything else in the universe has a quantifiable value.

If you're going to vote me down please explain how I am wrong and how not being able to put a price on life is more than just silly romanticism.

[valarauca1]

Counter point: How much do I have to offer you to kill yourself?

The actual answer is I can't. Because your life has infinite value to you, because without which you may not acquire any other wealth. I.E.: Your life is worth all the wealthy you may obtain to yourself, or potentially all wealth in existence.

Therefore, what is the quantifiable value of something with inelastic demand? Economics tells us its infinite (or we have to divide by zero to calculate it). But you say otherwise.

[donatj]

Honestly if you could wait until after my children are born, I'd take you up on it should the value be high enough.

[valarauca1]

I'm not that's the point.

You don't have children, this is a thought experiment to demonstrate an argument. You just have you. You're dodging the question.

[hobs]

He then makes the same offer for your kids.

[schrodinger]

How much can I pay you to give you a lobotomy and chop off your legs?

I find its easier to put a price on the abstract notion of the life of someone you don't know then your own.