17 Comments

Next, walter and his libertarian ilk will tell us how it’s not government’s job to mandate seat belts and that it’s completely inappropriate for schools to have driver’s ed videos. It’s amazing how these “free market uber alles” geniuses seem to understand day 1 of macroeconomics (supply meets demand) so well but then totally miss the boat from day two onwards (lecture topic: externalities). No slippery slope needed. Cigarettes are a product that deserve to be legislated out of existence because their circle of harm is far far wider than the single point consumer, plus they are addictive.

“The secret fear that someone, somewhere, may be enjoying themselves.”

So James thinks it’s a good idea to expand the war on drugs to tobacco. Because, I presume, we don’t have enough organized crime, murders, drug-related violence, and corruption already?

Actually James, I am not a libertarian but I think mandating seat belts is a stupid idea. First, there is no harm to others if you do not wear your seat belt. Secondly, the more people tell us what is safe or not, the less we learn what is safe.

We learn what is dangerous through experience, facts and logic. The new graphics mandated for cigarettes are none of those. First, they are horrible graphics. They look like they were done with Microsoft Publisher. As the Richmond Times article says, the new graphics are not warning labels. They do not convey any real facts that will dissuade people from smoking. What they do is try to rely on the emotion of the person as opposed to logic and reason. The problem with relying on “emotion” is that you have to keep moving the bar with more and more graphic images to get the same “emotional result.”

Warnings should not be based on emotional appeals.

Cigs will now be cooler than ever with the teenagers.

Had the cig co’s come up with this idea on their own they’d be accused of some sort of unfair marketing campaign, but since the govt came up with it, it’s for the children.

GregS – James thinks that the government is entitled to legislate out of existence any product that has externalities – which is every product. But he’s willing to make exceptions for the products that he prefers to consume because, well, those are different.

I can see a business opportunity here – colorful plastic sleeves for your smokes, with a pocket for a lighter. That just happen to be opaque…

Regarding mandating seat belts, if you go through your windshield because you are not wearing one, why is that any of my business or the government’s business — providing I/we don’t have to pay for your health care?

James: Government mandating seatbelt laws–or drinking ages– using taxpayer money to force states to “comply” is not the same as a school board buying a textbook–or a driver’s Ed. Video (which could be considered the same as a textbook). The school board is making a choice for the school/district to purchase something the district needs, while the government is coercing states to go along with whatever misguided mandate the gov’t comes up with next.
Apples and oranges.

Hmmmmm….come to think of it, using James’s post above, let’s change “Cigarettes” in his last sentence to…..”Bureaucrats, federal agencies, and certain members of Congress and the government….”.

No data to back this up, but I have heard that unbuckled passengers ARE a problem to more than just themselves. In a car crash they become rather heavy and fast-moving projectiles that can bounce around the inside of the car and seriously hurt other passengers, even the ones who are wearing seatbelts.

Benji
That’s up to the driver to enforce. As in, the driver is the “captain” of the vehicle and can enforce safety rules to their desire. And if the other passengers don’t like it, they’re free to get a ride elsewhere. No one ever made me ride with an unsafe driver, and as a driver, I won’t move the vehicle until my passengers are properly belted.

Well then, here we are. Beyond the expected chicken litle statements that my argument calls for the wholesale banning of everything fun and an ad hominem here and there (which I kind of expected), we get a nice little bonus – at least one person actually telling us that government mandated seat belt laws are a bad idea. First, I’d like to thank the people who made that point, since you make my job just that much easier showing just how far out of touch with reality a lot of you are. And I don’t mean “just a little.”

What you guys are proposing is nothing short of “public risk, private profit.” You know, the same thing you are railing about elsewhere (or at least, you should be, if you have been paying attention to the news in the last few years). Few and far between is the dead driver who has been able to fully bear the costs of his risk taking. There are costs from medical costs, emergency services costs, funeral costs, and numberous less tangible / non-financial costs, such as the effects on children of growing up without a parent or two (leading, to, say, increased prison costs). Furthermore, dead drivers will generally not pay off any debts which tehy have accumulated. Therefore, we members of society (and taxpayers) are all in some sense stakeholders in the action of each driver. To pretend that the risk is all his is simply to ignore reality. Because we are, like it or not, stakeholders, it is desirable for regulation to insure us against reasonably forseeable risks to our ‘investment’, and mandating seat belt use is pretty damn clear to anybody but a few select members of the libertarian bizarro world.

Amazingly, we got the bizarro-world point of view from somebody who calls themleves “antiredistributionalist” who is in fact advocating the most unequal distribution of all – a transfer of wealth from society to an individual simply because said individuals like to pretend that their actions have no wider consequences. His view, and the view of many here, is that ‘externalities are inevitable therefore we should ignore them all.’ What intellectual laziness! What dishonesty! What willful and utter stupidity!

There’s something to be said for overregulation, of course – and lord knows that the US suffers from its share. But this does not mean that all regulation is bad and there is a clear guideline for when it is appropriate – for when it serves to correct a significant market failure. For example, a predictible market failure occurs, despite the fantasies of some here, as dead drivers generally cannot insure themselves or society against the totality of harm that their actions cause society. The difference is not small – it is very significant and features the peculiar agency problem that individuals who are dead care less for what comes after them (this is the same general problem the underscores many environmental “debates” caused by the “antiredistributionists” railining against “distributing”, say, clean air to future generations – god – I can’t get over that nickname – what a moron!).

With smoking, the market failure occurs because smokers clearly harm far more than themselves. I’m not going to spell out why and how – honestly, those of you who don’t get this by now are just being wilfully ignorant and I already feel like a bit of pedant pointing out the story of seat belts to, the, umm “antiredistributionalists” amongst you. The legitimate role of government includes acting to correct market failures where it is impractical, very inefficient, or impossible for other corrective measures (such as lawsuits) to do so. Smoking is one such clear cut case.

And yes, by the way, National Health insurance is a wonderful idea.

First, I’d like to thank the people who made that point, since you make my job just that much easier showing just how far out of touch with reality a lot of you are.

I believe you were saying something about “ad hominem” statements?

What you guys are proposing is nothing short of “public risk, private profit.”

No, we are talking about “private risk, private consequences.”

Therefore, we members of society (and taxpayers) are all in some sense stakeholders in the action of each driver.

In some sense we are all stakeholders in any action a person takes. No decision or action happens in a vacuum. The issue is not the decision, but whether that decision directly affects others – not indirectly as you state.

You see James, when you bought your brown leather shoes, you took a cow skin from someone that could have used it to make a tent for housing in a third world country. Your decision to buy leather shoes affected someone else. Therefore, we should be able to regulate how many leather shoes you purchase, if we allow you to purchase them at all. Using your logic, your choice hurts others and therefore we, as society and a government have not only the right, but the duty to regulate your choices.

That is what you are saying, right? As all decisions have consequences, you and governments have the right to regulate any and all decisions that an individual makes. That is your argument, right?

“antiredistributionists” railining against “distributing”, say, clean air to future generations – god – I can’t get over that nickname – what a moron!).

I could have sworn you said said something about ad hominem attacks.

With smoking, the market failure occurs because smokers clearly harm far more than themselves. I’m not going to spell out why and how – honestly, those of you who don’t get this by now are just being wilfully ignorant and I already feel like a bit of pedant pointing out the story of seat belts to

If only the rest of the world – or at least the part of the world that believes rights rest with the individual – were as smart as you are James, the world would be a much different place. That is really what this comes down t0. Without any factual backing, you “believe” that others or a government can control people’s choices because you and they know better.

If you cannot convince people of that validity of your argument (and you have not come close here) then why should you or the government have the ability to force your opinion down my throat? Tell us all James, what gives you that moral or ethical right to force your beliefs and ideals upon those whose decisions are not directly affecting you or others?

And yes, by the way, National Health insurance is a wonderful idea.

Right. Because higher costs and less benefits is a good thing in your mind.

And since keeping costs down (like that is possible) with National Health care, you believe that the government or people should then be able to tell people what they can or cannot eat. You will agree to the principle of rationing of whatever you feel affects anything. Maybe a WWII style rationing card for pizzas? Or “sorry, James, you can’t have that Ho Ho because you have purchased your limit for the month.”

Maybe this comes down to a simple difference in what “freedom” means? To me, it means freedom with accountability for direct consequences. To you, the word may not have a meaning, and if it does, it is “what I or the government tells you what to do.”

James, I agree with almost everything you have said (“public risk, private profit”, I like it). But, geez, I don’t know that you need to be so dramatic. You seem shocked to find libertarian views here. Did you think this was the Daily Kos?

I agree wholeheartedly with idea of mandatory seat belts. Do I think you are a crazy lunatic if you disagree? No. I get that too.

James

All those costs you talk about with the dead, unbelted driver: They’re claims on the drivers estate, so in fact the driver DOES pay them after they’re dead (well, they’re paid out of the dead drivers property by the executor, or their liability policy).

Oh, and just because I don’t think there ought to be a law against something, doesn’t necessarily mean I support doing said activity. There shouldn’t be a law against swearing in public in front of children, yet I don’t do it as it’s uncouth, rude and trashy.

Oh, and just because I don’t think there ought to be a law against something, doesn’t necessarily mean I support doing said activity.

Exactly!

When I was growing up, my dad went from a ’56 Chevy to a 1965 Chevy Impala. The ’56 did not have seat belts – the Impala did.

He took us out in the Impala and asked us to stay in the seat when he stopped suddenly. He wasn’t driving fast, but we couldn’t stay put. He then latched us into the belts (lap only at the time) and put one of my sister’s stuffed animals between us. He drove a little faster and stopped suddenly. The bear went flying. We stayed in place. He then put the bear in the front seat while we stayed in the back. Speed up, hit the brakes, and the bear goes flying.

After that my family wore seat belts. Because we were all used to not wearing them, we made a “fine” for not wearing the belt of 5 cents. At the end of the summer, there wasn’t much money in the “fine box,” but we added some money and bought snowballs.

I wear a seat belt. Anyone in my car wears a seat belt – and wears it correctly too. Not because the government passed a law saying I have to, but that through logic and good sense, it is the right thing to do.

If one does not want to do the right thing and are injured in the process, that is not on me. That is on them.