Economics is about choices. In a free society, who should make these choices: individuals or governments?
Listen to an interview Sam Peltzman
The Hidden Danger of Seat Belts
What he found was that contrary to conventional wisdom, mandating the use of seat belts in 18 countries resulted in either no change or actually a net increase in road accident deaths.…
Adams' interpretation of the data rests on the notion of risk compensation, the idea that individuals tend to adjust their behavior in response to what they perceive as changes in the level of risk…
this driver will also be adjusting his behavior in response to what he perceives are changes in risks…
In the case of seat belts, instead of a simple, straightforward reduction in deaths, the end result is actually a more complicated redistribution of risk and fatalities. For the sake of argument, offers Adams, imagine how it might affect the behavior of drivers if a sharp stake were mounted in the middle of the steering wheel? Or if the bumper were packed with explosives. Perverse, yes, but it certainly provides a vivid example of how a perception of risk could modify behavior….
read the entire article
The Significance of the "Peltzman Effect"
There's an easier public policy solution if the goal is to reduce deaths from automobile travel: ban cars. But the goal of public policy isn't (and shouldn't be) to minimize the death toll from cars. The goal should be to set the safety level of driving to correctly take into account trade-offs between the risk of travel and the benefits of travel. People want safe cars and they also want to be able to drive quickly in order to see friends and family more often and do whatever else they accomplish and benefit from via car travel.
read the entire post
Personal Health and Safety: Whose Business Is It?
I'm simply asking whose business is it if I don't adequately plan for retirement or save money for my child's education? If I don't wear a seatbelt while driving or a helmet while biking, whose business is it? What if I don't get enough sleep or don't exercise enough for good health -- should government force me to, under the pain of punishment? In other words, should Congress have the power to force people to do what's in their own health, safety and welfare interests?
I'm afraid that most Americans believe that government should be able to force people to do what's in their health, safety and welfare interests. Their reasoning might be that if I don't wear a helmet while biking or a seatbelt while driving, I might have an accident, become a vegetable and become a burden on other Americans as taxpayers….
Should the fact that if I become injured by not wearing a seatbelt or sick from eating and smoking too much, and become a burden on taxpayers, determine whether I'm free to not wear a seatbelt or puff cigarettes and gorge myself? Is there a problem with freedom? I say no, it's a problem of socialism. There is absolutely no moral case for government's taking another American's earnings, through taxes, to care for me for any reason whatsoever. Doing so is simply a slightly less offensive form of slavery. Keep in mind that the essence of slavery is the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes or benefit of another.
read the entire essay
No comments:
Post a Comment