Thursday, February 18, 2016

Best Comment Exchange at 'Target Liberty' Today

" clear signage indicating the danger is also required. "

A positivist requirement on the property owner IMO....




  1. It's like pulling a thread on a sweater. Next thing you know, the property owner is "required" to buy the signs from Dr. Block's brother-in-law.
Hollow Daze go to the head of the class.

Whenever there is an over-ruling body setting rules for everyone. it is a central power that eventually will be used, abused and expanded.

Such calls for a central power for, of all things, signs is a terrible idea. Central power is always the problem.

  -RW

5 comments:

  1. " clear signage indicating the danger is also required. "

    If you ever expect anyone to sell you food or water or electricity or to allow you on the private roads. Or to get insurance. Or to ever have any visitors. People might not let you off your own property for 5,000 years. I could go on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. That's the complexity of these scenarios that are generally missed in discussions on a free society. If you want to exist with your neighbors, you will get along and not create a dangerous situation for their children.

      Question: If children regularly cross property and a new owner moves in and creates a dangerous situation for the children such as aggressive animals without an effort to prevent the two interacting (and the children potentially being hurt), what would be the response in a court? In a free society of course?

      Delete
  2. Woot woot! I win the internet today! Too bad it was kinda tongue in cheek because I've been arguing the other side with Sonepatchworth for the past few days...

    Another problem with signs is that they wouldn't be effective if a child trespasser didn't know how to read.

    ReplyDelete