• STUPIDVIPGUY@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    yeah if it’s public healthcare then that gives an even stronger argument to the government mandating safety equipment. but regardless of that monetary cost I think the other three aspects I pointed out are strong enough on their own.

    • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      yeah if it’s public healthcare then that gives an even stronger argument to the government mandating safety equipment

      Agreed.

      but regardless of that monetary cost I think the other three aspects I pointed out are strong enough on their own.

      I’m not overly convinced that a law should exist solely because of such reasoning. At the very least, if such a law must exist in some capacity, I believe that it should be enacted as some form of local law, or bylaw.

      • STUPIDVIPGUY@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Differing local laws just make things more complicated.

        Would you mind explaining why you believe that unnecessary death and the trauma surrounding it is not good enough reason to enforce simple safety laws?

        • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Differing local laws just make things more complicated.

          Would you mind explaining what you mean by this?

          Would you mind explaining why you believe that unnecessary death and the trauma surrounding it is not good enough reason to enforce simple safety laws?

          I don’t believe that the purpose of a law is to ensure the comfort of the public, but instead laws should be enacted to ensure one’s ability to freely pursue their life, and happiness.

          I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.

          • Thomas Jefferson