First of all my apologies to H*, one or two of my points are have come across with way more venom than I intended. Admittedly I'd just driven to PE and back in a 72 hour period with only 8 hours of sleep in the middle. I know this is no excuse, so I'm still apologising. I am still looking forward to your responses to my points though.
Now some replies:
Synk:
Dude, double negatives are confusing me, I'm still really tired!
Confluence:
Before I respond to your criticism of my post, I would like to clarify that the post on my blog, to which d@vid has linked, is completely unrelated to this discussion. It was inspired by an argument with considerably less sane and educated people than any of you, which should be obvious from the kind of behaviour that it makes fun of. I don't have to explain this, but I would like to, out of politeness. And no, none of this has been a "social experiment"; I do not play stupid mind games with people.
Never actually thought that for a second, It is a pretty funny coincidence though.
You want me to explicitly state which statement of Moonflake's is demonstrably false? OK, here we go:
"You break an arm, a leg, and your face is scarred for life." (...)
"Does the Road Accident Fund pay out? NO."
I believe that this statement would be interpreted by any English-speaking person as implying that the RAF does not pay out for the medical costs associated with broken limbs or facial scarring, especially since the separate issue of paying out for emotional damage suffered is addressed in the next point.
This would naturally be alarming to just about anyone if it were true, but it is not - it isn't even what is claimed in the writeup supporting the petition. This is, however, presented as a supporting fact, not an opinion. Is that clear enough for everyone?
Ok, that's great, if people actually tell others which part of their discussion they are disagreeing with then it becomes much easier to understand where they are coming from and argue the actual points. The problem here is that what moonflake said might be true depending on the way the law is interpreted. (I'm not going into it too much here, but laws are a set of rules that are interpreted by the courts to determine the meaning.) Here is what the Johannesburg Attorneys Association have to say on the matter.
"Section 21 of the Bill removes the common law right to claim for anything that the Road Accident Fund does not pay out, and Section 17 provides that the Road Accident Fund will only be liable to compensate for "a serious injury". What is a serious injury you ask? A serious injury is defined as being, in the draft of 31 August 2005, assessed "... on a prescribed method adopted after consultation with medical service providers". These medical practitioners will have to be accredited with the Road Accident Fund "... in the prescribed manner".
Sources close to the Law Society advise that almost every injury that you sustain in an accident, short of those that essentially ruin the rest of your life, will be excluded and you can rest assured that you will be receiving no compensation if "all" you suffer, as a result of an accident, is a few broken arms and legs and a couple of months only of hospitalization and no work. "
So basically these guys think that Moonflake is right. Because these guys represent more than 3000 Lawyers in Jo'burg, I think they are more qualified than any of us here to interpret the bill.
Me: When you state your opinion in a public forum, people are going to disagree with you.
You: Well no, they might also agree with her.
See, what you are doing here is bizarrely misinterpreting my statement. Perhaps I should again be more explicit. I meant to say "If you state your opinion in a public forum, it is to be expected that some people will disagree with you and say so", not "Clearly everybody is going to disagree with you because you are evidently wrong", as you seem to believe.
Fair enough, sorry.
You: You see what you are doing here is implying that she is wrong, but because you do not actually reference her position you give her no option to defend her it.
I apologise profusely; I thought it was obvious from the prior comments which statement I found objectionable. I have just clarified what it was.
Also Fair enough apology accepted.
You: So you've already attacked Moonflake's integrity and credibility, now you use a classic "Guilt by Association" fallacy to say "Moonflake sucks, therefore her opinion is wrong! Nice going.
Ah, thank you for putting words in my mouth again. I was criticising the way Moonflake responds to dissenting opinions, on the basis of the exchanges of comments that I have read in her blog. This is an entirely separate issue to the facts surrounding the RAF, and the part where I say "Ha! I don't approve of the way you argue with people, therefore your opinion is wrong!" exists entirely in your mind. You know, it is possible to address multiple offshoots of a discussion in a single comment, without blending all of them into a single unified statement of "You suck!" or "You are totally right about everything!"
Ok, I'm sorry if I read this incorrectly but when you say something like "usually, it seems, right after someone has brought forward an argument you can't adequately answer" you directly imply that Moonflake can not adequately answer the arguments currently put to her, to me that means you think she is wrong.
I disagree with many of Moonflake's opinions. I also agree with some of them. I don't think that I have been any more rude while disagreeing than she has been in the past.
Fair enough, I'm sorry I might have overreacted but when you say things like "Some people, when presented with evidence that they have stated something as fact which is not actually true, try to rectify the error, so that they do not wilfully perpetuate misinformation." and "The point is to determine what is true and what isn't - for some people, at least." the emotionally charged phrase "some people" implies that those would be the actions of a good/honest/decent person, i.e. what you would do. When you are expressly pointing out things that you feel Moonflake has not done you are therefore implying that she does not fall into the abovementioned category. Again just to be completely clear up until this point Moonflake has not been presented with any evidence that what she has stated is incorrect, only the opinion that someone feels that she is incorrect.
I'm not going to defend H*'s original post here, since he is perfectly capable of doing that if he wants to, except to say that your entire counter-argument also seems to rest on accusing him of opinions that he has never expressed - namely, passing some kind of nebulous value judgement on the wealthy.
No need for you to defend H*'s post, he's a big boy and I know that he can defend himself unless I've brought forward an argument he can't adequately answer! (I just couldn't resist the baiting, but I am only teasing. I realise that just because he doesn't answer me doesn't mean that I'm automatically right. I'd really like to hear his feelings on my points though.)
But to answer your point: You say my entire counter argument rests on accusing him of unexpressed opinions about the deservedness of the wealthy. In fact only three, out of seventeen, of my points answer issues of wealth. The first time I use an example to show that everyone does not contribute to the fund equally. In the second point I try to explain that under our common law people are entitled to compensation for loss, no matter how big that loss is, nobody deserves to be compensated more than anyone else, some people are simply entitled to more compensation than others. And finally the third time I point out that the fact that the limit for claims is set way above the average income does not make it a good thing.
You have convoluted two very different issues: "Is it good for people to be reimbursed for their full loss of income, and emotional damages suffered, as a result of their involvement in road accidents?", and "Should it be the government's responsibility to reimburse these amounts?", which is more to the point.
I don't feel I've convoluted these issues. They are two separate issues. It IS the governments responsibility to protect the citizens. As part of that protection they have instituted laws to stop protect people from harm, these laws cover topics such as sale of drugs/alcohol/tobacco, use of firearms and insurance of road users. Should the government do this? Well that's something you can debate with John Stuart Mill. The fact is that the government has taken on this responsibility and they should do it properly, but that's a new issue. My feelings about what should be paid for have already been stated. The issue is however that while the government has accepted responsibility for the public they are now trying to get out of paying what they are entitled to receive.
I'll end with a thought experiment: A man causes a road accident by colliding with another vehicle. Two streets down, another man causes the exact same kind of accident by colliding with another vehicle. The first man collides with a department store clerk driving a beaten up old golf. The second man collides with the CEO of a multinational company driving a brand new BMW.
Again I'll answer each of your questions separately
Is the second man's crime more severe?
No, and unless he was actually breaking the law at the time he has in fact committed no crime and will not be liable for prosecution. For simplicity lets just say that this is the case in the above scenario, no laws were broken.
If yes, why?
It isn't.
If not, why should he be liable for a monetary punishment hundreds of times higher than that of the first man?
While no crime has been committed loss has however been suffered. Let's separate this into three different categories: medical damages, vehicular damages and financial loss.
Medical: Again for simplicity I'm going to assume that the medical damage is the same and costs the same to fix, fair enough? No difference there.
Vehicular: Let's say both guys cars are written-off, should they both be replaced. Well yes, it doesn't matter that one guy caused R50 000 damage and the other R250 000, both owners are entitled to have their cars replaced. This is easy enough to understand and seems perfectly fair. I know that this damage is not covered by the RAF but it serves as an analogy for the next point.
Financial: Let's say that both injured drivers take a year to recover and during that time can not work. Are they both entitled to be compensated for the money they could have earned during that year. Neither party should have to suffer for an action that was not caused by them.
Is it ethical for the law to force the second man into indentured servitude for the rest of his life so that he can repay his vast debt to the CEO?
Well no, in such a case the courts would probably assess the wrongdoer's means and make him sell assets to cover the costs and if that didn't cover those costs then attach a portion of his salary every month. While the driver here is not going to be happy he is still able to live relatively well (because the courts will not cripple him), but the injured driver is going to suffer.
If not, should the responsibility for paying the debt fall to the government?
Should the debt be paid by the government, no!
If not, where should the money come from?
The insurance that every driver is forced to buy every time he fills his tank should cover him for the damages sustained to the person he has injured. This protects him and the injured party. He does not have to sell his house and the injured party should be compensated for his loss, it's part of the government looking after the citizens. Just remember that the law does not provide that the government pay for the loss, but that the RAF pay for the loss. The RAF is not the government, it is a compulsory insurance that is administered by the government, just like telkom was a communications company administered by the government and transnet was a railway company administered by the government. If the government were paying it would have to pay with tax revenue (this would not be fair), the RAF pays with insurance premiums collected when fuel is purchased. As an aside this one of the reasons farmers receive a subsidy on diesel, because their farm equipment is not run on the roads and is not covered by the RAF.
Confluence, I hope you read this last part of my post and comment on my answers maybe your responses will help me better understand your position.
Here's a looter guy for ya
5 comments:
erm. whatever happened to the good old days of a fair fight and silly quibbles? why do we all have to rationally get along?
f'rinstance: i think that shooting small animals as they crawl out of certain cardboard tubes is a perfectly good hobby. especially if a frag-grenade is employed. is that so wrong?
w-v: Long-John Actually Used X
eh
for the record, I was highlighting an amusing coincidence, nothing more - we are all on the same page etc
(don't be bitter babyacid, just because they voted to execute you)
insert smileys here
Well, my position is that the RAF is not intended to be, and should not be expected to be, total, uncapped coverage for everyone. I think it should be a baseline service, mostly benefitting people who can't afford any other kind of insurance.
The government doesn't have any default obligation to replace your house and all its contents for you if you get robbed of your possessions and the criminals burn the house down. It is undoubtedly really terrible for you if this happens, and you could argue that the robbery and arson was the government's fault, because it failed to protect you from the criminals, but the government will not recompense you for free. If you want to protect your property, you have to get your own insurance.
Now, you could say that that's OK because you don't pay any kind of compulsory "living in a house and owning stuff tax", in the same way that you pay tax on petrol. But you do get a benefit from the RAF, even if it's not a potentially unlimited benefit - which I think is fair, given that the amount you pay into the RAF is also not unlimited.
You say not everyone contributes equally to the fund. As far as I can see, the only differences are determined by the amount of fuel purchased, which is partially influenced by the fuel efficiency of one's car. While there are some extremely inefficient expensive cars which guzzle a lot of fuel, I'd say that among "normal" cars (i.e. cars which should not technically be classified as trucks), the newer, more expensive cars are generally more fuel-efficient than the older, cheaper cars. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong; I freely admit that I know very little about cars. So I'm not really seeing why a wealthy person who drives a long distance to and from work every day would necessarily spend much (or any) more than a poorer person who uses a car about as much.
And if we're fussing over the potential difference there, what about people who haven't got cars, and thus pay no petrol tax at all? If a driver hits a pedestrian who doesn't own a car, should the pedestrian not be eligible for any compensation from the fund? (Or is that how it works at the moment? Somehow I doubt it.)
I know that the fund has a finite amount of money. I also believe that the government's basic duty to its people is to try to provide adequate care for most of them, rather than to provide excellent care for the first X people who ask for it before the money runs out, and screw the rest.
If the amount of money that the fund pays out is capped, that potentially means that every person can get a little bit more, and to people who are very poor that can make a lot of difference. Now, this might get mismanaged horribly, and end up not yielding any benefits for anyone at all, but that is a separate issue.
In theory, I don't have a problem with the restrictions. I can afford insurance. I am paying for insurance. I don't expect the government to recompense me the full value of my income for free should anything happen to me on the road, any more than I would expect the government to replace my (hypothetical) priceless collection of Ming vases for free should they be stolen or destroyed. That doesn't mean I'm making some kind of value judgement on people who have collections of Ming vases, or saying that they don't "deserve" to have them, or something.
You could argue that it would be good for the government to partially or completely subsidise life insurance for people with certain desirable skills, in order to encourage people to develop those skills. And that's an interesting argument, and possibly I agree with you - but that's also a separate issue.
While I think that all particpants in this argument suck, and that it should never have escalated to this point, I feel that I shoul point out that there is a living a house tax. It is the Rates/Levies that one pays every month. Now all of you, STFU and move on.
w-v: I am Zulu Robot Servant Resdistribution Index
Your first paragraph decribes what you think the RAF should be quite nicely, and I'm not opposed to that view in itdself. My problem however is that this new bill, while accomplishing the above goals, is a reduction of services without a reduction in cost. Why should I be getting less when I'm paying the same, or even more?
You say that it shouldn't be government's responisbility to pay. Well Like I said it's a responsibility that the government has taken upon itself and they should do the job properly. As to cost and not paying unlimited amounts into the RAF, the pricing used to work like this: How much does the RAF cost (including admin) per year / number of liters of fuel sold per year = cost of RAF per liter of fuel. As you can see everybody who buys fuel subsides it. Now there is a fuel crisis at the moment, and if reducing the costs of the RAF will help, let's first reduce the costs associated with corruption and wothless law suits instead of those arising from valid claims.
To answer your question about what I expect from them: The same servcice the public has been getting with an increase in price due to inflation. If the government wants to cut the service, then cut the cost, I'll use all the money I save on extra insurance to make sure I'm covered. However if I have to pay the same amount to the RAF and I still need to organise my own insurance then something is wrong with the proposal.
As additional information other countries (particularly the US)require that you have insurance to cover these losses, the government does not take the responisibility to organise insurance, just to make sure there is insurance.
Also what did you think about the answers to the thought experiment?
Post a Comment