🚀 go-pugleaf

In <DnEA6K.K9q@moraga.ness.com> tweek@netcom.com (Reverend Tweek)
writes: 

>Think it through all the way then.  We are talking "RESPONSIBILITY".
>No-Fault is copping out on responsibility.  What does No-Fault and
>Mandated Insurance have to do with each other?  Nothing which can't
>be separated at the source.  

I'm still trying to get a handle on this "responsibility" or "moral" 
arguement against the no-fault proposal.

I've noticed that all the examples I seen arguing that no-fault is
immoral or "copping out on responsibility" is from the point of view of
individual vs. individual, one accident at a time, need to identify who
is responsible - who is the victim. I understand the ethics involved
here. Nobody wants to pay for someone else's irresponsibility.

On the other hand, I've noticed advocates of "no-fault" focusing their
debate on the larger number, cultural level.  They are pointing out
their may be a larger victim here, and the real responsible party is
the current tort system. I understand the meaning of the statistics
given to support the arguement for changing the system.

Thanks for a great discussion.

Galen Hunter
http://www.hntr.com/paradigm/