Study Finds Regulation Good For Telecom Customers
You describe a world where intervention by the courts is the sole means of government regulation, whereas in today's world we have the courts and direct regulation. I don't see how X AND Y implies NOT Y.
In order for this to be a true statement, intervention by courts now would not exist. Since it does now happen, your statement is a logical null.
I, and society, have that right because we generally agree on it and we have elected people who enforce it (the only true source of a right is the ability to enforce it), and frankly, we don't give a shit about your right to own unsafe products or fly on unsafe airplanes. One with your political views will probably shudder in horror at that statement, but it's the plain truth.
This is the argument of someone who wants to impose their opinions of good and bad on others. Just because someone else doesn't use a product or service that I believe to be wonderfully fantastic and know it would benefit them greatly, I still have no right to force it on them. Why do you believe you do have that right?
Now I have to pay more liability insurance. Your savings from eliminating regulation are getting smaller and smaller.
That's why liability insurance exists. Or do you believe that regulation somehow eliminates risk? I've got several thousand dead people on the other side of that equation, dead as a direct result of regulators creating an environment where jet planes could be hyjacked in flight by a handful of idiots with pocket knives.
No, regulation does not "eliminate" risk, as the fact that my apartment caught on fire due to faulty wiring proves (home inspectors seem to be deaf, dumb, and blind in my experience). It does, however, reduce it. That's as good as you can hope for in the real world, where nothing is perfect.
And how are regulators to blame for 9/11? I don't recall reading about any regulations that required airlines to let Jihadists with pocket knives on their airplanes. It's true that they failed miserably to do their job, but it seems that they were doing too little rather than too much, and it's hard to believe the outcome would have been different if there were no regulation.
Quite the opposite. I would consider allowing civil suits against companies that make faulty products a limitation on liberty, and a form of government coercion, so I suspected that you would probably actually oppose it. Your position, as stated, seems logically inconsistent to me. But I apologize for putting words in your mouth.
It is unfortunate that so many people labor under such fear of their neighbors. Now you show how you're afraid of me, afraid of my argument for liberty is somehow just a show, a lie.
How do you get out of bed in the morning with such a load of fear on your heart?