Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 16:12:10

From: Robert Stevens

Subject: UK Compensation Bill Published

Whatever the normative attractions of this position, it is not the common law.

RS

Jason Neyers writes:

Dear Robert:

I will stop the answering "questions with questions exchanges" and say (without having read the case) that I think that it is irrelevant that it is during an emergency or during the war. I do not see why it is relevant -- why should one persons rights be sacrificed for the greater good by a judge charged with enforcing rights? If it is in the public good, then the public should pay or retroactively deem the action to be mandated by law if they cannot afford to.

That is maybe why I do not think that I buy into Richard Wright's second concept of indirect benefits which seems to be saying that I have to accept as a social good things that others accept as socially useful. Do the Mennonite or the Amish have to accept the social utility of planes, trains and automobiles?

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>