My father was something of a libertarian. We were once talking about illegal drugs and he said, "Why should we stop anyone from eating rat poison or banging their head against a wall?" Fair enough. Yesterday my gal and I were driving around Los Angeles when we passed an electronic billboard reading, "Click it or Ticket." I got to thinking. First of all, why not a message like "Have a nice day" or "LA, We Love It!" Why is the default always some sort of Big Brother warning? Then I began thinking why on earth are the police able to profit from a person's decisions? Personally, I would never drive a car without buckling up. When did that stop being my choice? There's also a certain amount of cynicism in California's mandatory seatbelt law, for if they were really concerned about safety, the State would mandate roll cages, helmets and five-point harnesses, reducing the California's annual 4000+ motoring death rate to almost zero. Or, taken a bit further, if I want to, why can't I purchase a vehicle without 20 airbags, ABS, electronic interference and (gulp) seatbelts? Free market? Or am I just nuts?
68 Comments on “Question of the Day: Do You Like Mandatory Anything?...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
I tend to agree. There is the argument that not using seatbelts raises all our insurance rates, but I tend to think personal freedom is worth it, just as I feel personal freedom is worth not having a full body cavity search at the airport, just in case someone is smuggling a bomb up their butt.
I’ve been saying this to anyone who will listen to me for years! I get my way in the summer with my motorcycle.. but for icy days a 4 wheeled car with a roof would be nice. The only way around it here in pa is buying a kit car (which may still require a seat belt) or buying something built before seatbelts. I’m looking for a 50’s rambler! Great miliage, seatbelts were (mostly) optional, and you could probably pick one up.. literaly
You can purchase a vehicle like that. It just won’t be one built since the late 1960s. I love old cars, but they sure seem like deathtraps. No seatbelts, no padded dash, no collapsible steering column, lousy brakes, bias-ply tires…
I was raised to wear seatbelts. It weirds me out that there are people who don’t want to wear them. That said, I am a cranky libertarian enough that I don’t like mandatory seat belt laws.
no!
I’m with John Stuart Mills on this one:
“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
Sure, you could consider it economic harm to society if the person is injured, but I’d think he’d need a special insurance package to cover him for not wearing his belt so if he paid for it, who cares? In the long run I think we’re better off with natural selection. Let people buy an unsafe car if that’s what they want! Myself, I’m sticking with 4 stars as the minimum.
Yes, there should be a law making it illegal to mandate anything and everyone should have to abide by it. See how stupid that is?
I’m so free to do anything I want, when I want and how I want! Except for the fact that I was born into society, grew up in society and am a memeber of society.
Seatbelts are mandatory up here in Canada, and I was raised with them, so It doesn’t bother me to always put it on.
I’m all for added safety features, but I don’t feel that it’s the governments job to enforce me using them.
I want a stripper (car) with out any of the extra stuff weighing me down. With a nimbler car that stops/turns on a dime, I should be able to avoid the crash in the first place!
I think one should be allowed to forgo seat belts (car) and helmets (motorcycle), but must be an organ donor to do so.
There’s a happy medium.
Something as fundamental as seatbelt use should be mandatory. I hate rules as much as anyone, but Click-it-or-ticket is a good one. Prevents a lot of Darwinian deaths.
On the other hand, safety equipment has gotten out of hand. Give me front and side airbags, 4-channel ABS, and 4-star protection all-around (with corresponding weight loss), and I’ll be happy.
I had a buddy in college who refused to wear his seatbelt. Interestingly, he was also a scaredy-cat who would death-grip the oh-sht handles at 6/10ths driving (such driving usually caused him to put on his belt). Thought that was a weird dichotomy.
Nothing IS mandatory, people in positions of authority just impose additional penalties for decisions they don’t like. Hopefully, they do so because they believe in is for the greater good. Often, they are right.
Here’s the flip side… All of the mandatory safety equipment and standards accomplish two negatives in today’s car market:
1. They add weight. This reduces MPG.
2. They keep a lot of really good, high MPG cars out of the US market.
Drivers owe each other a few things, such as basic courtesy and a modicum of car control.
Seat belts help a driver to maintain car control. If you are flopping around the interior like a rag doll, your hands aren’t on the wheel and you aren’t planted in the seat where you belong. That means you are less likely to be steering and using the other controls that might save some lives and property. That harms me, and I am owed that much.
Drivers need to learn that while they are free to travel where and when they wish, they are not free to be completely oblivious to the needs of their fellow members of society while they are doing it. That means that you should choose the appropriate lane, appreciate that I shouldn’t need a psychic to predict your lane changes, and wisely choose a speed that is slotted somewhere in between the pace of a drunken snail and the latest land speed record. And yes, that includes using the belt.
(Hopefully, that also means keeping both hands on the wheel, and keeping the lattes at Starbucks where they belong, but I can’t force anyone to do that.)
It would be fine not to have anything mandatory, but there is huge however.
Been USA what it is, I really think it is not fare for tax payers to pay for life benefits for disable person, who happens to fly thru windshield because he or she did not feel like buckle up. Same can be apply for motorcycle helmets. If it was not for law suits, and disability payments, I would agree with you regarding too much control from Big Brother. Until people will take personal responsibility more seriously, let it be.
Then there is the argument among some economists that safety equipment causes people to be more careless drivers, as it reduces the cost of carelessness. Perhaps better to increase the cost of recklessness. To quote someone (I forget who), the best piece of safety equipment would be a sharp spike emerging from the steering column, pointing at the driver’s heart.
I like that were I live cops are not to hard most of the the time. Drinking and driving (sometimes), no seatbelts, no registration, tinted windows , not license, parking overnight etc etc…They are ok with it a lot of the time.
I see big brother as a humanitarian angry needy co-dependant. Sad, sad people, that I feel angry about often enough. It could be worse though. Also I am slowing working my way up to doing something about big brother. I can’t do it alone though. Sharing here is part of the process of change though.
Absolutely not. “Demolition Man” was an entertaining movie, but it’s becoming reality. Safety recommendations are all we need.
Here in Canada where we have universal health care, so the cost of stupidity and recklessness is spread across the whole of society. Under such circumstances, society tries to limit its damages by implementing rules that supposedly restrict your chances of becoming injured. It’s kind of like putting a curfew on your teens to keep them out of trouble. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.
seoultrain- that doesn’t seem very happy medium to me.
Pch101- I don’t think any normal driving conditions will cause you to rag doll around in a car.. now if you are trying to safly drive at 200 mph on a back road then i see your point
Then there is the argument among some economists that safety equipment causes people to be more careless drivers, as it reduces the cost of carelessness.
It’s a poor argument. We have decades of accident data that shows that safety equipment saves lives, and reduces injury and collision rates. Facts trump theory every time.
I do not want to entrust my life to someone else’s ability to pump brakes or to handle a car in a spin. I want that risk factor that is imposed upon me by others to be reduced. I certainly don’t want to pay for someone else’s mistakes.
Do You Like Mandatory Anything?
I’m going to take it that a reply needn’t be narrowly auto related – though I’ll try to work in something about cars.
Libertarians always strike me as sophmoric. Hope I’m not offending anyone. It’s a philosophy that can be summed as this way – “You’re not the boss of me!” Or more accurately “You shouldn’t be the boss of me!”.
It’s not the Libertarians are always wrong (nobody bats 1000) it’s just that they always want to take things to extremes. Many times, if you bring up the right examples, Libertarians might agree with some regulation.
As a matter of law and public policy should racial discrimination be allowed in employment or housing? Hey, it’s your company. It’s your appartment building. Shouldn’t you be able to do exactly as you like?
Should we really let people smoke crack if that’s what they want to do? Should we really take the junkies expressed preferences at face value? Is this really the life they want? Or do we know there is a better life if we can prevent them from becoming addicts. (Whether or not our drug laws actually deter anyone is another matter altogether).
How much laxity can we really live with? Can you play your stereo as loud as you want, or do I have some right to peaceful enjoyment of my property? Do we need a regulation here?
It seems self-evident to me that we need plenty of regulation in life. Do we go overboard at times? Sure. But then, there’s that old saying – Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I can go along with no helmet on a cycle. It’s your head, crack it if you like. If you fall you no longer have control anyway, and if I can’t avoid running over your head, it really makes little difference to me whether you’ve got a helmet on or not.
I have to agree with PCH on belts though – you owe me some sort of responsible safe driving to minimize danger to me. Belted in, you have at least a chance of controlling your car.
One more thing. Over memorial day weekend we had a family party near a lake. I rented a boat. I served several years in the Coast Guard and wouldn’t dream of being in any boat, on any body of water w/o a life jacket. My neice, 18, didn’t want to wear one. Ok. Her decission. It was a stupid decission, but it was her’s to make.
I don’t think any normal driving conditions will cause you to rag doll around in a car.
They will if you are involved in an accident.
One of the main purposes of a seat belt is to give the driver as much control as possible if involved in an accident. Since most accidents aren’t scheduled, wearing the belt keeps you prepared in the event that it happens. Particularly during a low- to moderate-speed crash when you may be able to steer and brake around it, this element of control enhances the safety of those around the driver.
Seat belts save us money, insurance, medical, lost productivity. AND think of the families being protected from the psychological and fiscal damage of have one or both parents injured or killed.
IF one is not wearing a seat belt (manditory or not) that person should bear the cost of injuries that were caused by an accident, no matter who is at fault.
I’ve never understood the anti seatbelt crowd. Seems pretty stupid not to wear one, I can’t really think of a down side to wearing one.
I can at least understand the motorcycle rider wanting the wind in their hair (or on their scalp) but even there it seems like the right thing to do.
For accidents and acute illness we have universal health care in the US also.
If you are acutely ill or injured in an accident you are cared for regardless of your ability to pay.
Insurance if you have it.
Your assets, higher than required hospital charges (to cover unreimbursed costs) and tax subsidies to hospitals help cover any uninsured costs of care.
You can’t opt out of this coverage (show up in an ER and you will be taken care of) so please use your seat belt as a courtesy to the rest of us.
It would be great if government mandated seatbelts for the reasons PCH outlined, and we all went along.
Instead, at least in Texas, government mandated seatbelts because they didn’t want to pay the bills for increased costs after accidents. In other words, because the voters couldn’t stomach the idea that people might have to go without healthcare, they made a rule restricting everyone’s liberties and taxing them all. Okay, maybe the seatbelt law is a good compromise on that, but I liked it better when people had to get charity for bad fortune. That way, they weren’t entitled, and we at least got some benefit for taking care of them.
Once we decide that we don’t owe everyone food, lodging, healthcare, a tv, and a car, we might be able to go back and get rid of a lot of the mandates.
Frantz – care to elaborate? I admit my post was a bit vague, but what I’m willing to compromise is surely not the same as everyone, which is why I personalized it. My point was that few people will want no safety features and few will want/need 20 levels of electronic nannies.
1981.911.SC – I think people want that sense of freedom, pretty similar in principle to riding a motorcycle without a helmet (but much smaller in magnitude). They get some sort of sense of superiority over the masses, who are buckled and constrained. I’m sure there’s a lot of psycho-babble that could explain it better.
Here’s the flip side… All of the mandatory safety equipment and standards accomplish two negatives in today’s car market:
1. They add weight. This reduces MPG.
2. They keep a lot of really good, high MPG cars out of the US market.
With tongue mostly (but not completely depending on my mood and how many idiots I see on the road) in cheek, I would add that we’re allowing too many very stupid people to survive long enough to produce even more stupid people who are even stupider.
Do I like mandatory – no.
Am I glad certain things are mandatory – yes.
I’m glad 99.9% of people stop at red traffic lights, I’m glad 99.9% of people on the road have passed a driving test,
I’m glad we’re driving cars that aren’t engineered like Ford Pintos.
So we sacrifice a modicum of personal freedom – I think it’s a price worth paying.
Also, show me a parent who wouldn’t prefer to see their offspring seat-belted or crash helmeted…
Dynamic88: “Libertarians always strike me as sophmoric. Hope I’m not offending anyone.”
That may be the most (unintentionally?) hilarious comment yet seen on these boards. While it is difficult to take seriously an argument prefaced thusly, I will nevertheless respond.
The libertarian philosophy is not ‘you’re not the boss of me’. Rather, it is ‘each individual is best able to determine what is in his or her best interest and will therefore be allowed to pursue that to the extent that it does not infringe on the rights of others’. Sentiments like those expressed by Dynamic88 (among others) are derived from the belief that government (or some other authority) is best able to determine what is in each individual’s best interest. This is, in my mind, the ultimate condescension.
I consider myself libertarian in many respects. To answer your the questions posed above: yes, one should be able to discriminate in any way one wishes with regards to one’s property. Information regarding such discrimination would of course be disseminated by word of mouth and the media, and the free market would take care of such bigots. Yes, people should be free to use whatever drugs they wish. I absolutely agree that drug use is incredibly stupid based on what I value in life; if your values differ feel free to ruin your life. Again, employers are free to administer drug tests as a condition of employment. No, you may not play your stereo as loud as you wish as of course this infringes on the rights of others.
With regards to the seat belt laws, I do see some merit to the argument that one may have less control of one’s vehicle in a crash when not using a seatbelt. However, in the event of a crash severe enough that a seatbelt is required to keep a driver in place, will that driver actually be able to exercise any control of his or her car? I tend to doubt it. Further, can we then agree that (at least once government involvement in the insurance domain is removed) adult passengers are free to forgo use of a seatbelt?
What are the odds that many of the people who think we should have mandatory “things” would be horrified if I were allowed to dictate to them?
How would you feel if my personal desires were allowed to dictate the color of your home (because it affects land values) the type of car you drive, the type of foods you eat, the movies you see, what alcohol you’re allowed to drink, etc, etc, etc….
It’s very easy to claim that people have to be told what to do for “everyone’s” benefit if you don’t realize that not everyone shares your idea of what constitutes a benefit.
Let’s take seatbelts, for example. I don’t think that the safety gains and cost reductions we get are worth the sense of entitlement those laws give a government.
You may think that’s ridiculous, but the point isn’t whether I’m ridiculous or not- the point is that you’ve blithely decided that everyone should follow your dictates without any regard for whether or not they share your perspective.
I’m not happy with that, and I wish we leaned more towards freedom of choice than free checking.
Pch101:
It’s a poor argument. We have decades of accident data that shows that safety equipment saves lives, and reduces injury and collision rates. Facts trump theory every time.
All collisions? Steven Landsburg, economist from the U or Rochester, has opined that collisions have increased but injuries/fatalities have decreased due to safety advances. (This is all per vehicle miles driven).
It sounds intuitively correct to me. And maybe fewer injuries deaths is worth the trade-off of more minor accidents. But the More-Safety-At-Any-Cost crowd isn’t really known for rational cost/benefit analysis.
Note that Landsburg has also stated that driver behavior would vastly improve if airbags were replaced with exploding spikes. He’s got a point – but it wouldn’t be worth the carnage.
All collisions? Steven Landsburg, economist from the U or Rochester, has opined that collisions have increased but injuries/fatalities have decreased due to safety advances. (This is all per vehicle miles driven).
John Kenneth Galbraith once remarked that economists offer their opinion not because they know, but because they are asked. Does Landsburg have any evidence to back this opinion?
I’ll agree that injuries/fatalities are down due to saftey advances. (We seem to agree then that the equipment works) but I seriously doubt if people are being more reckless because the safety equipment is now standard.
I’ll make the argument FOR mandatory driving behaviors.
First, if the mandatory behavior is not hardwired into the car, you can always choose to break the rules. You simply face the risk of discipline, usually in the form of a small fine.
Second, and most importantly, these rules give us (the responsible drivers) a host of built in defenses should we find ourselves in an accident, due to someone else’s negligence, in which someone was seriously injured. Take seatbelts. If you’re in an accident and the other driver goes through the windshield because they weren’t wearing their seatbelt, it’s not your fault – they should have been wearing their seatbelt. If there were no rule requiring the use of seatbelts the situation would be much more murky.
Net net, I think having rules like this in place gains me much more than it costs me.
seoultrain- sure thing. I don’t have a problem with the options you said you wanted all your cars to have.. but i don’t think they should be more than options. As a biker I’m used to the dangers of an accident and you can bet your @$$ I’m far more careful on a motorcycle than I am in a car. Just like i’m alot more careful in my 66 rambler with 4 wheel drums than my 96 jeep with abs. Maybe I’m smarter at driving than some people are when it comes to knowing my vehicles limits for sanity, but why should i be forced to have any airbags or even abs if i want not too? I hate laws that protect against my stupidity. The idea of letting people get hurt is cruel, but I’d rather take that than risk losing my freedom. I’m not talking super extreamist things like owning a nuke reactor in my basement, but airbags are not my thing. Sorry for the rant
No. That is why I’m voting for Ron Paul. Whether he’s on the ballot or not.
Steven Landsburg, economist from the U or Rochester, has opined that collisions have increased but injuries/fatalities have decreased due to safety advances. (This is all per vehicle miles driven).
I guess that Dr. Landsburg was too busy writing up fallacious reports to spend five minutes with Google to look up the data.
Here’s some data from NHTSA:
Year / No. of collisions / Vehicle miles traveled (billions)
1995 / 6,699,000 / 2,423
1996 / 6,770,000 / 2,486
1997 / 6,624,000 / 2,562
1998 / 6,335,000 / 2,632
1999 / 6,279,000 / 2,691
2000 / 6,394,000 / 2,747
2001 / 6,323,000 / 2,797
2002 / 6,316,000 / 2,856
2003 / 6,328,000 / 2,890
2004 / 6,181,000 / 2,965
2005 / 6,159,000 / 2,990
If we crunch those numbers, we can see that during that period, the number of collisions declined by 8%, while vehicle miles traveled increased 23.4%. So when measured on the basis of accidents per the number of miles traveled, the collision rate fell by 25.5% during that eleven-year period.
His thesis appears to have no merit at all. He would have to prove that the accident rate would have fallen even more than that without the safety equipment. I seriously doubt that he has anything but mere fancy to defend that position.
At some point in time society must keep the idiots from screwing things up for the rest of us. On one hand I’ve always worn seatbelts. I don’t get it. They can throw you off an airliner for not wearing your seatbelt. Why not cars? If you, not wearing your seatbelt, get thrown from your car in an accident and it drives up MY insurance rates because your medical coverage ran out, where the fairness in that?. Same thing with motorcyclists and helmets. Here in Florida when they rescinded the helmets laws the only stipulation was that one had to carry $10,000 worth of medical coverage. Come on, how far is that $10,000 going to go when your head smacks the pavement and you are rendered a vegetable. And how much are MY premiums going to go up? Incidentally, motorcycle fatalities are up since the helmet law was rescinded. Granted there are more bikes on the road now as everyone has to have a Harley even though they can barely ride a bicycle. The fataility rate for those not wearing helmets is way higher than those who do. I think when government steps in and requires things like helmet and seatbelt usage they are doing that “promote the general welfare” thing…the verb, not the noun.
I wear seatbelts, but I have yet to own a car equipped with airbags. Driving defensively means that you dont put a car into a spot where some idiot can pile into you. Hell, I stop at intersections when I have a green light if my view of the intersection is obstructed.
NO!!!
Gregzilla :
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:25 pm
At some point in time society must keep the idiots from screwing things up for the rest of us…. If you, not wearing your seatbelt, get thrown from your car in an accident and it drives up MY insurance rates because your medical coverage ran out…
YOUR rates?
How much money have you cost me in mandatory safety options and fuel costs?
Since your big argument is based on how much money other people cost you, I demand that you quit forcing me to buy expoensive and heavy safety items.
After all- how much money you cost me is the important issue here, right?
By the way- your insurance premiums are driven by the stock market, not claims. That’s why premiums dropped after Katrina and they’ll be going up this year.
thebigmass rightly said that the libertarian philosophy is based on the idea that ‘each individual is best able to determine what is in his or her best interest and will therefore be allowed to pursue that to the extent that it does not infringe on the rights of others’.
Which is fine, and would be a fine philosophy if each individual *were* best able to determine what is in her or her best interests and act accordingly. But they aren’t.
How do I know that?
Because people ride motorcycles without wearing helmets!! What better evidence could you ask for that people don’t always act in their own best interests?
At the same time, we have to admit that the fact that people aren’t always the best ones to determine how they should act doesn’t mean that the law should always be there to step in.
Sometimes the social cost of enforcing a law is greater than the ill it’s meant to prevent, and when that’s the case, you shouldn’t have the law. So says H.L.A. Hart (someone else quoted Mill, so I get to refer to Hart).
So how is it with helmet laws and seatbelt laws? Well, given that they don’t seem to work too hard to enforce these laws in most places, and yet, the laws still seem to convince some of us who otherwise wouldn’t to wear helmets or seatbelts, I think those laws are in pretty good shape.
So there.
I think the libertarian philosophy is based partly on the notion common to economic theory that consumers always have perfect information and always work to maximize their utility. (Are you maximizing your utility yet?). In fact, it is increasingly recognized among economists that consumers never have perfect info, and economic psychologists are showing that most people don’t even know how to maximize their utility (see Stumbling Towards Happiness, by Daniel Gilbert).
I would still say that in most cases where an individual’s bad choices have minimal impact on society, the individual should be free to make bad choices. But not where those choices harm society.
Of course, we can probably then argue long and loudly over what constitutes harm to society. There are rarely easy answers. But this is the kind of thing that makes the posts on this website so interesting.
Dynamic,
Please don’t quote Galbraith. That guy has been proven to be wrong more often than a broken watch. He is the poster child of the ivory tower idiots of North America. I would put much more faith in your thoughts than his, anyday.
Dynamic88, not to pick on you, but maybe you should read this wikipedia link: Logical Fallacies , then go back and read your post.
Specifically, you pigeonhole libertarians as something they’re not, then attack that false image of libertarians you’ve build up. It’s called the Straw Man fallacy. I’m not sure if you’re doing it on purpose, and that method does rile people up, but it’s a dishonest argument. Demagogues, like talk radio commentators, do this all the time. Are you a demagogue?
Anyways, to contribute to the discussion, I think the government should get rid of laws to protect the stupid from themselves, and let natural selection do the rest. This way, the best genes survive. For example, helmets on motorcyclists. If you want to be an idiot and not wear your helmet, be my guest – you should be free to make that decision.
But I’m open to discussion. Someone, please tell me why I’m wrong.
Is it just me, or has TTAC gotten way too political the last 2 days? Between this article and the Ford credit story turning into a gay issue, it’s a little more than I bargained for when I clicked the TTAC icon in my link bar.
What is nice is that the discussion seems to be pretty intelligent and rational.
I think that forcing people to wear their seatbelt can certainly be seen as “preventing harm to others”. When I was learning to drive, my dad made the point that if you get into an accident you may be able to keep control of the car if the seatbelt is holding you in place. You won’t be able to keep control if you’re knocked out and thrown into the back seat because you were unbleted. Besides, I personally don’t see how anyone can be comfortable driving without being buckled in.
Now that a triple overtime hockey game has me wide awake I suppose I’ll respond to some of these posts.
First: blau, your assertion is that the fact that some people don’t wear motorcycle helmets (while riding a motorcycle) is prima facie evidence that many people do not act in their own best interest. The fallacy in this is that you are imputing your values to all people. Some people evidently value whatever sense of freedom they feel from riding sans helmet more than they do their life and health. I agree that this is foolish, but it is not my decision to make. There are many instances in which people do not act in their best interest. Have you ever seen a morbidly obese individual eating a Big Mac and french fries? Is this not self-destructive behavior? I myself have 4 partially torn ligaments in my knees as well as torn cartilage in each (I have had an ACL reconstruction so I know well the pain of surgery) and yet I play hockey twice weekly. Is this self-destructive? I am close with someone who suffers from severe depression yet refuses to see a counselor or take medications. He writes poetry and music and his art thrives (or so he says) on his pain. Should any of these behaviors be regulated?
Gregzilla: Please do not flippantly bandy the General Welfare Clause. There is tremendous debate as to the actual meaning of those words and the powers they grant (James Madison tied them to the other enumerated powers while Alexander Hamilton held a more liberal view; the debate predates the ratification of the Constitution.)
David Holzman: I agree entirely that consumers rely on imperfect (or a dearth of) information when making their decisions. The alternative, however, is a cabal of politicians making decisions for everyone based not only on incomplete information but often on ulterior (or worse, sinister) motives. The idea that any of our three remaining presidential candidates or our fine congresspeople are well equipped to regulate the minutiae of daily life for a nation of 300 million is specious.
Landcrusher
Please don’t quote Galbraith. That guy has been proven to be wrong more often than a broken watch. He is the poster child of the ivory tower idiots of North America. I would put much more faith in your thoughts than his, anyday.
There isn’t any economist who hasn’t been proven wrong numerous times. The only purpose of the Galbraith quote was to emphasize that one should take everything economists say with a grain of salt.
Adonis
I’ll suggest you read the wiki article on Libertarianism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
I talk to Libertarians whenever I encounter them. I even used to lean towards the philosophy myself. They do frequently say things like “all drugs should be legal”. (I used to believe that myself) So, I don’t believe I’ve built up a strawman. IMO they don’t think hard enough about the effect of individual decissions on the whole society.
“… if I want to, why can’t I purchase a vehicle without 20 airbags, ABS, electronic interference and (gulp) seatbelts?”
You can. They call them “motorcycles.”