Originally Posted by al45lc
At one time in this land there was a doctrine known as The prudent man principle (now slightly bastardized by the legal definition for managing funds) that recognized that a man was responsible to and for himself, giving credit to a prudent persons intelligence.
I find the kinds of laws and rules that dictate my conformity to others lack of intelligence insulting to mine.
And I'm perfectly willing to be held liable for any actions I may take or cause, that's the price a prudent person recognizes for their liberty.
Prudent man principle. Yes, I don't disagree with what you described.
Still, I suspect there should be a balance between socially agreed contracts for bigger issues versus just the innate self-preservation ability that we assume most people are born with (and that is a big assumption given the wild popularity of the "Jackass" franchise). "Giving credit to prudent person's intelligence," implies that intelligence levels are generally the same in society.
But we are not funding education the same as Defense Dept., Wall St. Banks, etc... How does that affect prudence/intelligence in society? -I suspect it does.
I agree completely with the idea that you can't simply legislate away stupid. But you can allocate more for education in general. That usually takes legislation though it can also mean budgeting more for current existing programs.
Either way, do things get better by simply ignoring it? Yes, I guess when the Darwin factor finally hits zero. But I gather that's a whole lot of unnecessary suffering in between for good folks who otherwise could have learned better.