Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 02:27:34PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I'm reasonably sure that in Thomas' view, those who cannot be bothered > > to carefully observe bridges and examine the engineering diagrams > > beforehand should not be walking on them, and deserve whatever happens > > if they willy-nilly walk out on an alleged "bridge" only to later > > discover it is in fact not a bridge, but a squirrel. Failure to check > > the attendance and attention patterns of all those involved in > > designing and implementing the bridge is merely a particular form of > > the lack of attention which unfortunately pervades our society. > > I didn't have Thomas pegged as such an extreme right-wing libertarian.
Indeed, Thomas has exactly the opposite view. I don't think the person walking on the bridge has an obligation to verify its safety. That obligation pertains to the person who *builds* the bridge, and I'm all for strict laws under which the government exercises significant regulatory control over the engineer. Because the obligation pertains to the *builder* I want an educational system which keeps idiots *out* of the bridge-building business. One way to do that is to make sure that people who are tricked by false-statements-on-blackboards fail their classes. Thomas
