Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!decvax!yale-com!leichter
From: leichter@yale-com.UUCP (Jerry Leichter)
Newsgroups: net.auto,net.flame
Subject: Re: seatbelts make sense
Message-ID: <1707@yale-com.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 3-Jul-83 18:40:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: yale-com.1707
Posted: Sun Jul  3 18:40:25 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 4-Jul-83 07:25:08 EDT
References: utcsstat.739
Lines: 68

Re:  Dangerous fireproof" pyjamas.

Laura's example is good, if sad; but you don't need to got to Honduras to
find an example; pretty much the same thing happened here.  When the FTC
passed a requirement that all children's pyjamas had to be fireproof, the
industry pretty much unanimously came to the conclusion that the best way
to do this was to treat the fabric with a substance called Tris.  It turns
out that Tris is a carcinogen.

After the fact, with 20-20 hindsight, all the consumerists attacked the
industry for using Tris "just because it was the cheapest substance available."
There is all sorts of debate on this now, and it's still up in the air - since
there are, of course, law suits involved - but from what I've seen, there
was little research available on the safety of Tris when the decision to use
it was made.  On the other hand, there doesn't seem to have been much research
available on any of the (more expensive) substitutes either.  The manufactures
are, of course, liable under the usual strict liability theories for "un-
reasonably dangerous" consumer goods - a theory widely recognized as having
little to do with justice as such, but rather a form of compulsary insurance.
(For those unfamiliar with it:  Under strict liability theory, a manufacturer
is liable if her sells a dangerous item even if he can show that he took all
reasonable precautions.  The theory arose around the turn of the century as
the result of cases involving things like bits of sharp metal found in cans
of peas.  As a practical matter, you can NEVER show any particular case of
negligence in something like this; the manufacturer will show how carefully
everything is checked, etc.  For a long time, consumers lost cases like this.
Eventually, the law changed; it was decided that metal in a can of peas was
in and of itself a sufficient reason to hold the manufacturer liable.  The
resulting law then says:  No matter how careful you are, we realize that
accidents will happen; but you have to pay for them as the "deep pocket"
in the case.  I.e.:  You have to get (or provide your own) insurance to
cover the oddball, one-in-a-million case when something goes wrong.  Of
course, all the 999,999 purchasers of non-defective cans of peas pay a
little extra to cover this cost; nothing comes free.)  (My own feeling about
this, BTW, is that it's a very reasonable approach, as long as it is kept
within bounds.  Occasionally, it gets out of hand - like the celebrated
case of the New York idiot who dried her poodle off in a microwave oven,
killing it.  She sued and won.  (Yes, it really did happen; a lawyer friend
looked it up one day.  Many cases like this are won in jury trials but then
overturned on appeal.  In this case, there was apparently a lot of bad
publicity in the air about microwave ovens at the time, so the company decided
it was better to just eat the loss and avoid the press coverage that would
certainly have attended the appeal.  Isn't justice wonderful?))

Anyway...to return a bit closer to the original topic:  A fundamental dif-
ference between the marketplace and the world of politics is that the mar-
ketplace supports many parallel solutions to the same problem, allowing the
purchaser to choose.  (That's why monopolies are a bad thing; they don't
give you that choice.)  Politics, on the other hand, is inherently a matter
of making choices between alternatives.  It works best when a single choice
can be made that makes everyone at least reasonably satisfied.  Political
"parallel solutions" are extremely rare, probably rightly so - if there is
no concensus within the polity on the direction to take, why is the polity
as an entity taking any direction at all?  Politics relies heavily on com-
promises - i.e., merging different solutions into one that leaves no one TOO
unhappy.

So...whenever you propose that "the government" get involved in some choice,
remember that a side-effect will be that the choice made will soon be the
ONLY one available - so you had better be prepared to live with it.  Some-
times this is a good way to go, sometimes it's not - but each situation has
to be examined closely on its merits.

A great French phrase that I can never remember in the original comes to
mind:  It is necessary to also want the consequences of what one wants.
(The French has a great ring to it; does anyone know it, or the source?)
						-- Jerry
					decvax!yale-comix!leichter leichter@yale