Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: steve-b
While you're at it, teach them how not to crash the car, and demand that seat belts be relegated to the status of optional accessories.

Are you really a liberal-tarian? Or just a Nader-ite nanny-statist?
191 posted on 09/13/2006 9:43:06 AM PDT by Antoninus (I don't vote for liberals, regardless of party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]


To: Antoninus

I think the analogy of vaccines to seat belts and air bags is apt, but maybe not for the most obvious reasons.

Let's suppose that automakers decided to offer belts and bags as standard equipment, because it's the right thing and the safe choice, no government intervention involved. Let's suppose that the people at GM aren't evil, that they like saving lives, and that they might want to sell the people they save another Buick in a few years.

Let's suppose that every year, ten thousand people live longer because they were belted in or had airbags, and would otherwise have died sooner. Every year, one hundred die sooner because, due to some freak occurrence, they were killed sooner by their seat belts or air bags, and would otherwise have lived longer. A 99% success rate is pretty damned good in most areas of human endeavor.

(An editorial note: I chose the words "killed sooner" and "lived longer" deliberately. A lot of public health studies use the term "preventable death," which has always irked me. There is no such thing. At most, it's a postponable death. Ad te omnis caro veniet.)

From the automakers' perspective, that's a losing proposition. Most of the hundred (their next of kin, since they're dead) will likely sue for millions and few of the ten thousand will kick back a dime. Win or lose, the legal fees will be staggering. So the fiscally responsible choice for the automakers is not to offer safety devices, or at least to offer them as a cost-added, risk-assumed option.

So here comes the government. It requires seat belts and air bags. The net result is positive; fewer people die. The companies are (mostly) shielded from liability, because a plaintiff can hardly claim that the automaker acted irresponsibly in complying with the law. Win-win.

On the issue of seat belts and air bags, I would argue that government mandates allowed the automakers to do what they would have liked to do, but couldn't otherwise. The purpose of a company is to maximize shareholder value. The purpose of a government is to protect its citizens. Each has its place, and horrors happen when they get out of balance.


234 posted on 09/13/2006 10:31:27 AM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson