Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!mhuxl!smh
From: smh@mhuxl.UUCP (henning)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: Logical Conclusion (a minor point ...)
Message-ID: <425@mhuxl.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 5-Jan-86 14:02:14 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxl.425
Posted: Sun Jan  5 14:02:14 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 6-Jan-86 03:46:27 EST
References: <1261@cbdkc1.UUCP> <419@mhuxl.UUCP> <2440@amdahl.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 13


 ****                                                                 ****
 From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA mhuxl!smh

> > This just an example of how a stupid argument is used to defend
> > a stupid idea, namely that my insurance should pay for injuries that
> > are caused by someone not wearing protective restraining devices

> To base the argument on a general social cost rational is to loose freedoms.
 
The freedoms are:
Freedom from liability for injuries caused by wilful negligence of others.
Freedom from pain and suffering caused by wilfil neglect of others.