New answers tagged

6

The problem is exactly public data accuracy, disclosure, and transparency, as you stated in the title. With the data coming into the CDC, there's little to no politicization of the data. (At least there's not supposed to be, since it's not a political organization.) With the data going to the White House, it can potentially be manipulated before it goes to ...


4

Reading the letter in full, it appears that this is merely a return to business as usual. The Royal Thai Government granted a grace period for expiring visas until September 26, based on the fact that travel during the COVID pandemic is difficult. That effectively means that no one needs to have their visa reviewed by anyone until that date. After that date ...


0

We don't know why and they aren't saying. According to an article on The Thaiger, a "spokesman from the US Embassy declined to comment on the motive behind the embassies’ decision to stop providing extension letters." The UK and Canada are also refusing to issue such letters, so the US is not alone in this. To speculate, it may be that these ...


3

Sometime in the 80's, Mike Royko (editorialist for the Chicago Tribune) wrote a piece covering an accident case. (I'm going from memory here.) A car had hit a motorcycle and the fault was clearly the car's. The motorcycle rider suffered pretty bad head injuries and so the car's insurance company was on the hook for substantial damages. The case went to ...


7

Law can restrict freedom Your definition of freedom "I should be able to do anything and everything, if it DOES NOT AT ALL hurt anything or anyone, be it financially, physically, mentally etc." is relevant to the default situation where no relevant regulations exist. However, you live in a society where that freedom is restricted, and you can do ...


3

Other answers being good, a lot of pressure to mandate the safety tools and features comes from the insurance business. When you insure something (be it property or other lawful asset, such as life and health) you are expected to protect the insured asset by all practical means. A certain amount of neglect can be considered an insurance fraud. A seatbelt in ...


5

Unfortunately, most other answers here don't have any sources. I'll answer this from the perspective of German lawmakers and translate the appropriate sources, since that's what I am most familiar with. Germany made it mandatory for cars to have seats belts on the front seats on 1974-01-01, for rear seats on 1979-05-01. Since 1988-01-01 the outer rear seats ...


11

What you understand by 'freedom' is not a universally accepted guiding principle. For example, some lawmakers might be operating on the idea that we should attempt to maximise the health and happiness of society. If you break your spine because you didn't wear a seat-belt, then your health and happiness (and freedom to walk around) is reduced. They then ...


16

It's a tradeoff between two things: the harm prevented by the law, and the freedom exercised (or harm tolerated) without the law. While I won't echo the existing answers, I will say that the harm prevented is fairly substantial and potentially lethal to more than just the victim. In contrast, the freedom infringed upon is tiny: Unless your helmet is damaged ...


21

There are laws that are meant to prevent people from hurting themselves. Examples: Prohibition of advertising for cigarettes (or forcing cigarette packs to contain images of lung cancer sufferers, etc) Minimum age for driving, drinking, etc Minimum age of consent Financial literacy tests before people are allowed to buy options in the stock market ...


Top 50 recent answers are included