Suicide bridges

Quote: 1nickelmiracle

We have no idea how to calculate because we don't know how many people die or how to value them. It's kind of a useless argument for this reason. Lets use the lifetime earnings of a HS diploma of 2 million and college degree of 3 million. Then what? If you want to attempt an argument like this, you need to prove it and not just say if it was done, I would be right. Even if you did, you still have to argue constitutional issues which would get complicated since none of us most likely are expert enough and wouldn't know much about Oregon.

Basically, all you do is look at the historical suicide numbers for a given Municipality based on all of the bridges in that Municipality, or any one particular bridge. Having done this, you figure out what the mean number of deaths by suicide, annually, are linked to those bridges. After that, you determine the cost of building the barrier, the life expectancy of the barrier, add in your cost of upkeep, and then divide by the number of years you think the barrier will stand.

Now, you have your annual cost of the barrier, again, based on the life of the barrier with initial implementation being an immediate expense. In determining the NET value of a person's production, you simply look at the value of their production less the value of their consumption. You could do this on a case-by-case basis based on the people who did kill themselves, or you could just go with the intuitive, which has it that their net production value, individually, is reasonably close to nothing.

Aside from that, I can prove nothing. I don't have any specific Government reports on the matter from Oregon and doubt very much if I would be privy to such reports, if they exist. My degree is in Economics, if that helps, so my guess is at least educated.

Quote:

Cost benefit analysis leads to actual horrible results dedicating resources to drug enforcement and DUIs and not as much to rapes, murders, theft, etc. so it's really not a good way to run a government whose purpose is based on responsibility and duties to citizens. The government owes it's existence to the people and the people do not owe their existence to the government. You can see where cost-benefits become excuses for not ignoring government's responsibility.

What CBA results in dedicating resources to drug enforcement? That's a horrible idea from the standpoint of CBA. The first thing you need to do is Federally legalize marijuana and tax the Hell out of it, and then get anyone imprisoned on any marijuana-related (and only marijuana-related) charge released immediately. Beyond that, what drugs should or should not be legalized is an argument for a different day. But, for God's sake, you're talking about the second largest cash crop in this whole country, were it legal! Tax, tax, tax! The Government(s) make a fortune on cigarettes and alcohol...hell, even on gas, which is necessary...legalize and tax weed!!!

I also don't understand what you mean about dedicating the resources to DUI's, but not murder. I don't drive drunk, so a DUI, in my reasoning, can lead to what I consider to essentially BE murder. You don't even want my stance on criminal law, I've softened a bit. First offense DUI, and your license is Federally revoked for your entire life, second offense is capital punishment. There's a deterrent for you. I've softened in that, my stance used to be first offense-Capital Punishment.

The Government and the people do not owe their existences to one another in any way, the Government IS the will of the people. Maybe was, rather than is, but the point of the matter is that, "Government," is not some a priori thing to human existence, not something that has always been. Perhaps not directly, but the people chose this.