[Publius Valerius]

How is it possibly irrational to require the lowest cost provider of information to provide it?

When you go to the amusement park, there is a long list of warnings when you get onto a roller coaster, for instance. Why? Because park operators need to disclose potential hazards to the general public so potential riders can make an informed decision about the risk.

Second, you don't have to stop at seizures--indeed, you can't just stop at seizures--I just picked a non-obvious example of a danger associated with moving pictures and blinking lights. In order to a person to knowingly and voluntarily assume the risk of participating in the activity, they MUST be aware of the potential dangers. It is utter madness to place the burden on each member of the general public (whose efforts would be MASSIVELY duplicative and wasteful) when the burden can be placed on the business owner at a much, much lower social cost.

While my proposal is both low-cost AND beneficial to the safety of the general public, your proposal is high cost and would contribute to needless injury and death (which also increases costs of society, of course) from those that don't take the time to inform themselves about the risks associated with every single product in the marketplace (of which there would be many).

So which should we choose? The low cost and safe alternative or the high cost and dangerous alternative?

[robertpaulsen]

"there is a long list of warnings when you get onto a roller coaster, for instance."

And I can sue the park out of existence (as some are proposing for this radio station) if I die of something not on that list, like a stroke? And according to you, I can sue even if I have had strokes in the past.

Well, screw the inheritance for the kids -- I'm spending it all. Then when I'm 80 years old and broke, I'm going to Great America and hop on all the "E" rides! Let my kids sue for their "inheritance"!