Actually, you're right. Your position is that everybody should do all the checks individually, which means redundant multiplication of labour. Having the roadside collection doesn't eliminate any redundancy in labour, so it's not as much of an efficiency saving as marketplace regulation.

The "harm" or lack thereof isn't in the daily practices, but in the exceptional cases. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were harmless until things went wrong. The market does not provide adequate mechanisms to preempt risky behaviour. In fact, as we saw with the financial crisis, risky behaviour is encouraged by the need to gain an advantage over your competitors. Without public bailouts, most of the major banks in the western world would have folded because the risks they took on unsafe credit proved unwise, to say the least.

You might as well suggest that roadside garbage collection "infantilizes" people, and that we should all have to throw our garbage onto the back of the cart ourselves, like granny did.

Yes, but no-one is scared of involuntary manslaughter laws. People either give a shit about road safety or they don't.

I think the GP was basically saying the opposite -- no amount of consumer pressure will stop the invisible hand giving us the finger, only regulation can do that.

Dog-eat-dog? Sorry, but that's slanderous. Dogs are pack animals and live in societies. Humans, on the other hand... well, that's debatable.

Sorry -- I get confused about US terminology, what with not being there and all. Read that as "car theft" then.

You have erroneously conflated "prisoners" with "violent offenders". The vast majority of people convicted to custodial sentences are convicted of non-violent crimes, such as possession of illicit substances or petty theft. Even car-jacking is usually carried out in the absence of the owner and with no threat of physical harm.

It is not only the violent criminals that are alienated and disenfranchised by the "ex-con" label, but anyone serving a custodial sentence.

And even violent offenders may be victims of circumstance. Drug addiction doesn't come without the addict choosing to take drugs, but the consequences of drug addiction can include violent tendencies that are cured if the addict cleans up. But what's the point coming off your escape from reality when reality is that no-one will give you a second chance?

I completely understand this, although thankfully not from first-hand experience. It is a tragedy that so many parts of our society see vindictive punishment as a valid goal, rather than attempting to reform offenders. It's all part of the wider societal love of trying to categorise people into goodies and baddies, like in the old westerns. Problem is, the cowboys we were brought up to think were the goodies were actually a bunch of evil c...s and the "nasty" injuns were just trying to survive.

The GP asked you to look at the cost of death row prisoners. I think what he means is paying compensation to relatives for a false conviction is cheaper than keeping them alive until the appeals process is finished, and that he personally feels that this line of logic is acceptible. Personally, I consider this attitude murderous in and of itself. Perhaps the GP will voluntarily submit to the death penalty...?

Ah, but the Department of Corrections sounds soooo much more civilised than "the Department of Brutal Vengeance".

That would be legal jargon. Check the statute books.

In that case, we need regulation to minimise the risk and obviate the need.

I suspect the real thinking behind this is subtler than you give them credit for. Burro (like Uber before them, and like YouTube before them) is going for the "dumb pipe" defense: "we're not a company, we just facilitate trade between individuals and other individuals/small businesses". Getting all the individual "casual hauliers" (for want of a better term) to register isn't good for the state or good for the hauliers, and by extension it isn't good for the public. I think what Texas are trying to do is maneouver Burro into the position where Burro has to register as a mover/haulier and take contractual responsibility for all jobs agreed through its service. As this would remove a lot of administrative overhead (centralising tax reporting, for example), it would be more efficient, and therefore theoretically cheaper to the end user. If it is not cheaper, then it demonstrates that there is something missing in the current system. The most likely culprits for that missing expenditure would be skimping on insurance and vehicle inspection and maintenance, and that's something that can't just be waved off as "good because... cheap!"

Grrr... damn government, trying to regulate our markets and reduce the burden of due dilligence on the individual customer. What do they think they're doing, saving us time? With all this unemployment, they should be making us spend more time checking up on potential suppliers, so that we have less time to dedicate to work and the jobs can be shared out more equally.