Freedom and Risk

[Lewkowski]

http://townhall.com/columnists/johns...riskfree_world

A child leaving home alone for the first time takes a risk. So does the entrepreneur who opens a new business. I no more want government to prevent us from doing these things than I want it to keep us in padded cells.
Everyone has a different tolerance for risk. One person takes out a second mortgage to start a business. Another thinks that sounds nerve-racking, if not insane. Neither person is wrong. Government cannot know each person's preferences, or odds of success.

Even if it did, what right does it have to tell them what to do?

When government gets in the business of deciding which risks are acceptable and which aren't, nasty things happen.

This includes government's attempt to improve life by regulating gambling and the use of medicine, banning recreational drugs and mandating safety devices in cars.

In what sense are we free if we can't decide such things for ourselves?

Through the Food and Drug Administration, the government claims to protect us. But some people suffer because of that protection: Some die waiting for drugs to be approved.

Don't we own our own bodies? Why, in a supposedly free country, do Americans, even when dying, meekly stand aside and let the state limit our choices?

The Drug Enforcement Administration jails pain-management doctors who prescribe quantities of painkillers that the DEA considers "inappropriate." It's true that some people harm themselves with Vicodin and OxyContin, but it's hard for doctors to separate "recreational" users from people really in pain. Some cancer patients need large amounts of painkillers.

After the DEA jailed doctors, some pain specialists began to underprescribe. The website of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons warns doctors: Don't go into pain management. "Drug agents now set medical standards. ... There could be years of harassment and legal fees." Today, even old people in nursing homes sometimes don't get pain relief they need.

Even the best safety regulations have unexpected costs. Seat belts save 15,000 lives a year, but it's possible that they kill more people than they save.

University of Chicago economist Sam Peltzman argues that increased safety features on cars have the ironic effect of encouraging people to drive more recklessly. It's called the Peltzman Effect -- a variation on what insurance experts call "moral hazard." Studies show that people drive faster when they are snugly enclosed in seat belts.

Also, while passengers were less likely to die, there were more accidents and more pedestrians were hit.

Perhaps the best safety device would be a spike mounted on the steering wheel -- pointed right at the driver's chest.

There's another reason to think seat belt laws have been counterproductive. Before government made seat belts mandatory, several automakers offered them as options. Volvo ran ads touting seat belts, laminated glass, padded dashboards, etc., as the sort of things that responsible parents should want. I concede that government action expanded seat belt use faster than would have otherwise happened, but by interfering with the market, government also stifled innovation. That kills people.

Here's my reasoning: The first government mandate created a standard for seat belts. That relieved auto companies of the need to compete on seat belt safety and comfort. Drivers and passengers haven't benefitted from improvements competitive carmakers might have made.

If every auto company were trying to invent a better belt, today, instead of one seat belt, I bet there'd be six, and all would be better and more comfortable than today's standard. Because they would be more comfortable, more passengers would wear them. Over time, the free market in seat belts would save more lives.

We don't know what good things we might have if the heavy foot of government didn't step in to limit our options.

In a free country, it should be up to adult individuals to make their own choices about risk. Patrick Henry didn't say, "Give me safety, or give me death." Liberty is what America is supposed to be about.

Let's start treating people as though their bodies belong to them, not to a controlling and "protective" government.

***************

More and more people seem to be OK with the government filling a paternalistic role. Not just in prescription drugs and seat-belts but look at credit cards, mortgages and other financial services. The assumption is not longer than people can take care of themselves instead we are assumed to be delicate children who can not possibly survive without THOUSANDS of regulations that govern every single part of life.

The costs of course are difficult to determine. Like Stossel points out things are not cut and dry, government stifles innovation... meaning that we don't even KNOW what the true cost of the regulation is.

[Khendraja'aro]

The seat belt idiocy again?

And a "better and more comfortable" seat belt? Yeah, dude, hate to point it out - but "laws of physics" and all that. You can either have "better" or "more comfortable". Unless you're going sci-fi and invent inertial dampeners.

Not to mention that you're already free to buy yourself a multi-point seat belt. Like the ones you put toddlers into. Seems as if the market has already heard your plea and provided! But don't let cold reality get into the way of a braindead rant, okay?

Here's an example for a six-point seat belt, just in case you were doubting me:


Just in case you were wondering: The guys in those cars also wear helmets. Again, it's either more safety or convenience. Both? Not so much. And that's why you have those three-point seat belts in all the cars: Because they're the middle ground between convenience and safety.

[Ominous Gamer]

Shadowed a stripper friend who drove an evo with the 6 (5?) point seat belts. Those things are a bitch, but they work like a glove.


and i'd love to see what kind of bullshit study the article is citing to claim seatbelts kill more than they save.
Not to mention that people drive more recklessly, fatalities have been dropping for years, and the best response lewk's camp has is say there are more accidents (when compared to decades best when a smaller % of the population drove). They continue to confuse road density with recklessness.

[Lewkowski]

Shadowed a stripper friend who drove an evo with the 6 (5?) point seat belts. Those things are a bitch, but they work like a glove.


and i'd love to see what kind of bullshit study the article is citing to claim seatbelts kill more than they save.
Not to mention that people drive more recklessly, fatalities have been dropping for years, and the best response lewk's camp has is say there are more accidents (when compared to decades best when a smaller % of the population drove). They continue to confuse road density with recklessness.

The argument was made by a University of Chicago economist however Stossel doesn't say it DOES he says it MAY cause more deaths.

Either way it *should* be a private choice. Government has an important job to do - protect people from each other. It should not be in the business of making choices for people to protect them from themselves.

[Ominous Gamer]

it DOES he says it MAY cause more deaths.

Yeah, noticed that. Call them weasel words. You want to slip in bullshit claims by twisting someone's words or failing to do any research at all, and when you're call on it, you fall back in that grade school "thats not what I really said" routine.

Either way it *should* be a private choice. Government has an important job to do - protect people from each other. It should not be in the business of making choices for people to protect them from themselves.

You have no idea how seatbelts work do you?

Maybe you should look into why seatbelts in rear seats became law, cause you're obviously ignoring the protecting from each other angle.

[Lewkowski]

LOL very few deaths are caused by people being ejected and hitting other people. I'm sure its possible but all things considered that's a pretty minor risk. You'd get more bang for your buck by banning SUVs (not that I would ever support it).

And what do you mean weasel words? How exactly are you going to conclusively prove something like Peltzman Effect in regards to seat-belts with all the other moving variables such as speed limits, car design, demographics ect.

[Ominous Gamer]

LOL very few deaths are caused by people being ejected and hitting other people. I'm sure its possible but all things considered that's a pretty minor risk.

citation

And what do you mean weasel words? How exactly are you going to conclusively prove something like Peltzman Effect

for one, you don't write an article around one concept thats based completely off a "maybe" while ignoring what the research does show as well as all other factors.
those things are usually called conspiracy theories.

[Lewkowski]

Citation? Are you flipping serious you are the one who had the burden of proof if your saying its important to have seat-belts so you don't fly out your windshield and hit someone. The burden would be on you.

As far as basing the article on it... you missed the point. It is an example just like the prescription drug thing.


**
Even the best safety regulations have unexpected costs. Seat belts save 15,000 lives a year, but it's possible that they kill more people than they save.

University of Chicago economist Sam Peltzman argues that increased safety features on cars have the ironic effect of encouraging people to drive more recklessly. It's called the Peltzman Effect -- a variation on what insurance experts call "moral hazard." Studies show that people drive faster when they are snugly enclosed in seat belts.

Also, while passengers were less likely to die, there were more accidents and more pedestrians were hit.

Perhaps the best safety device would be a spike mounted on the steering wheel -- pointed right at the driver's chest.

**

Maybe 1/4 of the article?

To my point and why I posted the article - People are far too OK with the government being our parents and restriction our liberties in order to "protect us." Be it seat belts, helmets on motorcycles, laws against certain types of food being eaten within city limits, laws against happy meals, laws against drug use, laws against gambling, laws against what loans people can take out (pay day lender restrictions for example), laws against a bazillion other sets of rules all designed to protect us from ourselves. So are you comfortable with the government making all of those decisions for you?

[Timbuk2]

So are you comfortable with the government making all of those decisions for you?

Yep.

[Khendraja'aro]

LOL very few deaths are caused by people being ejected and hitting other people. I'm sure its possible but all things considered that's a pretty minor risk. You'd get more bang for your buck by banning SUVs (not that I would ever support it).

And what do you mean weasel words? How exactly are you going to conclusively prove something like Peltzman Effect in regards to seat-belts with all the other moving variables such as speed limits, car design, demographics ect.

So, we're back at your sociopathic "I want to kill people" fringe opinion? How does it feel to be a mass-murderer-in-wanting?

Because that's what you're proposing here: Killing people.

[Aimless]

http://www.freakonomics.com/2006/12/...and-important/

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levi...Porter2001.pdf

The theory is sensible. When I am unbelted, I am at greater risk for injury, so I may drive more cautiously. In economics, this idea is attributed to my friend and colleague Sam “Seatbelt Sammy” Peltzman in the 1970s. Economists call this tendency the “Peltzman Effect.”

In practice, though, the evidence could not be clearer that seat belts are an incredibly cost effective way of saving lives. (See for instance, this study of mine and the citations therein.) Whatever small offsetting impact that more reckless driving due to seat belts may have, it is trivial compared to the benefits of wearing a seat belt.

LOL!

[Khendraja'aro]

Well, Lewk mistakes a hypothesis for a theory.

I mean, there are plenty of common-sense hypothesis in psychology which sound good and rational when you hear them - and which fall flat on their face when being subjected to real-world experiments.

[Ominous Gamer]

Citation? Are you flipping serious you are the one who had the burden of proof if your saying its important to have seat-belts so you don't fly out your windshield and hit someone. The burden would be on you.

No, you admitted that its possible, so you've already accepted my claim, the burden of proof is now for you to show that its a minor risk (especially considering the physics involved), and the SUV claim was 100% your bullshit.

[Illusions]

More and more people seem to be OK with the government filling a paternalistic role. Not just in prescription drugs and seat-belts but look at credit cards, mortgages and other financial services. The assumption is not longer than people can take care of themselves instead we are assumed to be delicate children who can not possibly survive without THOUSANDS of regulations that govern every single part of life.

While there are thousands of regulations which are likely useless I have no problem with the government enacting regulation that operates in a manner similar to automated public complaints or boycotting*. I shouldn't have to repeatedly remind or inform every individual company I deal with that it is not okay to spam me with emails or phone calls about products. I shouldn't have to physically inspect, and know how to inspect, every individual product I buy from soap to gasoline to be sure that its going to function as advertised, while also not killing or sickening me. I shouldn't have to worry about any medications I take potentially being unsafe. This list can go on and on. I'm fairly certain that you're going to argue about the public having the ability to do this, or needing to take responsibility for themselves, but we have plenty of evidence that this does not happen, or that there can be severe consequences for individuals before the public collectively rises to action.

*If you want a bad simple analogy for this, think about the address bar in your modern web browser. Do you always type http:// into it for a web address, or preface the fact that you're searching for something using it, or does your browser just take care of this for you? Do you think of this more as nannying, or an as an efficient feature that saves you time and lessens aggravation?

[Lewkowski]

Yep.

Ah so your good with pot being illegal.

[Khendraja'aro]

"You're".

See, I can do this one-liner things as well.

[earthJoker]

"You're".

See, I can do this one-liner things as well.

You just failed at it!

[Khendraja'aro]

You just failed at it!

I know. That was the whole point

[Loki]

You should have used a semicolon instead of a period.

[Khendraja'aro]

Thus spake the master of one-liners; it's practically a commandment now!

[Timbuk2]

Ah so your good with pot being illegal.

Pot is legal.

Pot is useful.

Pot heat food make food omnoms.

[Khendraja'aro]

Pot heat food make food omnoms.

Considering the massive obesity problem in the US, it only stands to reason that pot should indeed be illegal, then!

[Loki]

How would kettle feel?

[Khendraja'aro]

Well, kettle needs some affirmative action, with him being black and all.

[Lewkowski]

While there are thousands of regulations which are likely useless I have no problem with the government enacting regulation that operates in a manner similar to automated public complaints or boycotting*. I shouldn't have to repeatedly remind or inform every individual company I deal with that it is not okay to spam me with emails or phone calls about products. I shouldn't have to physically inspect, and know how to inspect, every individual product I buy from soap to gasoline to be sure that its going to function as advertised, while also not killing or sickening me. I shouldn't have to worry about any medications I take potentially being unsafe. This list can go on and on. I'm fairly certain that you're going to argue about the public having the ability to do this, or needing to take responsibility for themselves, but we have plenty of evidence that this does not happen, or that there can be severe consequences for individuals before the public collectively rises to action.

*If you want a bad simple analogy for this, think about the address bar in your modern web browser. Do you always type http:// into it for a web address, or preface the fact that you're searching for something using it, or does your browser just take care of this for you? Do you think of this more as nannying, or an as an efficient feature that saves you time and lessens aggravation?

I am completely OK with the government enforcing contracts including everyday implied contracts of the soundness and safety of the food we eat.

I am not OK with the government saying McDonlands can't have Happy Meals inside the city limits.

I am not OK with the government banning the use of drugs like marijuana because they feel its dangerous to the user.

I am not OK with the government banning certain types of lenders because they think its unfair to the consumer (who isn't forced to take the loan!!)

I am not OK with the government requiring its citizens to wear seat-belts.

I am not OK with the government requiring helmets on bikes and motorcycles.

I am *fully* OK with the government going after people who commit fraud. I am *fully* OK with the government going after companies who false advertise.

I am against the government protecting people from themselves. I am fine with the government protecting people from each other. That's the purpose of the state. To protect society from thieves, rapists, murderers, ect. Government should enforce contract law and have a system to settle disputes (the courts). It should not be in the business of being a nanny and deciding what is best for everyone. That violates their liberty and essentially says people are too stupid to run their own lives and they need big brother to protect them from THEMSELVES.

[Being]

I am completely OK with the government enforcing contracts including everyday implied contracts of the soundness and safety of the food we eat....I am against the government protecting people from themselves. I am fine with the government protecting people from each other. That's the purpose of the state. To protect society from thieves, rapists, murderers, ect. Government should enforce contract law and have a system to settle disputes (the courts). It should not be in the business of being a nanny and deciding what is best for everyone. That violates their liberty and essentially says people are too stupid to run their own lives and they need big brother to protect them from THEMSELVES.

Deciding what is best for everyone is in fact the sole purpose of government.

[wiggin]

I am completely OK with the government enforcing contracts including everyday implied contracts of the soundness and safety of the food we eat.

I actually don't get how this follows from the rest of your worldview. Why is this an implied contract? How is this different from arguing that excessively fatty meals are not 'safe' other than a matter of degree? Why can't people just decide on their own which food they will and will not eat?

Essentially, the government is banning food they feel is unsafe for people to eat. How is that any different from banning cars they think are unsafe to drive, or banning drugs they think it's unsafe to use? So what if a restaurant I frequent has unsanitary conditions? It's my own choice to eat there, isn't it?

[Ominous Gamer]

Hate to be that "think of the children" person, but most of what Lewk is so short sightedly against not only harms the adult thats too stupid to manage their own life, but any children that have to rely on that adult. Its an idiotic stance to claim the government shouldn't be involved in the protection of its future generation.

[Illusions]

I am completely OK with the government enforcing contracts including everyday implied contracts of the soundness and safety of the food we eat.

But I'm assuming you're against the requirement that food carry proper labeling of its ingredients, nutritional value, and calorie content, for food sold anywhere, including restaurants, although it is essentially mandated labeling of what we're eating, so that we know the safety or quality of said food*. This is just one example of things you've likely overlooked in regards to these contracts.

I am not OK with the government saying McDonlands can't have Happy Meals inside the city limits.

This one is ridiculous, and I'll need a source that this was ever actually put into law (not just proposed by someone).

I am not OK with the government banning the use of drugs like marijuana because they feel its dangerous to the user.

Aside from recreational drugs, what about actual drugs? Again this is likely one of the overlooked contracts you mentioned, because I'm fairly certain that if they weren't required to mention it in their advertisements, and other media, drug companies would not at all be upfront with people about the side effects of the drugs they produce.

I am not OK with the government banning certain types of lenders because they think its unfair to the consumer (who isn't forced to take the loan!!)

Would you be okay with the government requiring them to include information about how bad the loan is with any other information they give out to people considering this loan?

I am not OK with the government requiring its citizens to wear seat-belts.

I am not OK with the government requiring helmets on bikes and motorcycles.

Others, and myself have pointed out numerous times before that not wearing a seat belt and not wearing a helmet have consequences for people besides those who choose not to use them.

I am *fully* OK with the government going after people who commit fraud. I am *fully* OK with the government going after companies who false advertise.

What about lying by omission? For instance I market my wonder weight-loss drug, Thiniva, and it works as advertised, but I also leave out all of the horrible side effects that people won't discover until they take it, like possible insomnia, memory loss, mood swings, liver damage, rashes and other allergic reactions, and possible sterility.

I am against the government protecting people from themselves. I am fine with the government protecting people from each other. That's the purpose of the state. To protect society from thieves, rapists, murderers, ect. Government should enforce contract law and have a system to settle disputes (the courts). It should not be in the business of being a nanny and deciding what is best for everyone. That violates their liberty and essentially says people are too stupid to run their own lives and they need big brother to protect them from THEMSELVES.

A decent portion of the "automated boycotting and complaint" laws I've mentioned would fall under protecting people from others.


* - On the nature of selecting foods, yes I would assume most adults like myself are fully capable of understanding that a chocolate chip cookie is not a healthy food, and that we should limit our intake of them, however when I'm out somewhere and decide to indulge in some, I would like it if whoever I'm buying a cookie from isn't trying to hide the fact that instead of a regular chocolate chip cookie, what they are actually selling is a chocolate chip cookie made with a large amount of crisco.

[GGT]

It's called the Peltzman Effect -- a variation on what insurance experts call "moral hazard." Studies show that people drive faster when they are snugly enclosed in seat belts.

In a free country, it should be up to adult individuals to make their own choices about risk. Patrick Henry didn't say, "Give me safety, or give me death." Liberty is what America is supposed to be about.



***************

More and more people seem to be OK with the government filling a paternalistic role. Not just in prescription drugs and seat-belts but look at credit cards, mortgages and other financial services. The assumption is not longer than people can take care of themselves instead we are assumed to be delicate children who can not possibly survive without THOUSANDS of regulations that govern every single part of life.

The costs of course are difficult to determine. Like Stossel points out things are not cut and dry, government stifles innovation... meaning that we don't even KNOW what the true cost of the regulation is.

"Liberty" in a "free country" also means we self-govern, at both state and federal levels. Federal laws applied to auto manufacturers, but seat-belt and helmet use laws can vary by state, presumably to reflect voter choice. Odd that Stossel quoted an insurance expert on "moral hazard"....but didn't mention that lobbying powers of the Insurance Industry had a direct impact on passing those federal mandates, and neither did you.

The anti-innovation argument is bunk. 'Regulation' hasn't stopped new and improved models of infant cars-seats; being able to lock a carrier into the car without constantly fiddling with straps and belts, one-step belts or infant-to-toddler seats. They've innovated height-adjustable shoulder belts, or attached them to the seat instead of the door frame, so they don't dig into the neck.

And when it comes to adult individuals choosing their own risks....that changes when those behaviors interact with the public, and put others at risk, too. Part of government's role IS to protect the general welfare/well-being of its citizens. We can debate when it's too much or too intrusive, but that doesn't mean gov't is paternalistic, or that all laws and regulations are strangling our freeedoms, or stifling innovation.