I keep getting involved with the same argument with several different people, that if we didn’t have government, automobiles and other sources of transportation would cause us all to die prematurely. I keep resorting to private roads/ capital value of land versus public roads etcetera.. Some people try to wiggle their way out of that specific point all together.
I then point to regulations since the 1980s that have made cars smaller, less safe, and more expensive for the consumers.
They also don’t seem to realize that automobiles despite all the burdensome government regulations have gotten more efficent with time and not through regulation alone.
Even my economics brought this up as an excuse that market is widely inefficent (he’s big on global warming).
But, then again like I said, i have had this arument with about 10 different people.
Why would anyone buy a car/ride a train that is known for its below-average passenger safety? How would car companies survive that do not meet consumers’ safety, efficiency and longevity expectations?
Now, there is planned obsolescence. Some products are not designed to last as long as possible. But this need not be bad. If a company can produce a car for 2000 bucks that is expected to only run five years, they might find buyers for it. If, on the other hand, all new cars were mandated to have every safety instrument there is, low-income individuals would hardly be able to afford one. It’s a tradeoff, and car companies do not engage in it because they want to harm consumers, but because they wish to cater to as many of them as possible.
And then there’s the tried and true complaint that manufacturers build too many SUVs. But how many are too many? If consumers wish to buy heavy-duty vehicles for whatever purpose, an auto market that responds accordingly is anything but “inefficient”. Maybe your economics professor thinks that people are “inefficient” since they do not share his greenish preferences; but then, he should have the honesty to state that openly.
Which makes zero sense. Simply put, where’s the money to be made by killing your customers? Not a lot of repeat business in that model I’m thinking.
You have to realize what they’re really saying, which is: “Other people would value safety differently than I, and instead of letting them do so and find their own balance in life, I prefer to substitute a categorical standard - my standards - for what would otherwise result from the marginal judgements of others.” That is what they’re really saying. The idea that somehow corporations just want to make products that kill people is ridiculous.
Yup, and last I heard, people wanted that shit and knew the risks of chronic use of their products. So what’s your point? Are you honestly saying the companies want their customers to die and are aiming at that end?
The act of selling someone a cigarette and of them smoking it per se harms no one. The act of selling someone a McDonald’s burger and of them eating it per se harms no one. Over time and with chronic indulgence in the use of either product indeed, health problems may arise. And they may not. You could say the same about anything else on the planet, so how are cigarettes and McDonald’s food fundamentally different from anything else on the planet where chronic indulgence might cause problems? Answer: they’re not. Any jackass could by intent or accident kill himself through acute or chronic use of a piece of silly puddy when you get down to it, does that make silly puddy deadly and its manufacturer a murderer? Or are you, as I said in my post, merely looking at what you see as the greater risk associated with chronic use of cigarettes and McDonald’s food and categorically substituting your safety judgements for everyone else’s which you find wanting?
I personally enjoy a good McDonald’s burger every now and then, and I’m getting one tonight just because arguing this point made me crave one. And my last physical had me in excellent health if a tad on the heavy side. Seems like McDonald’s isn’t killing me, though I may choose to up my risk of health problems significalty by eating nothing but their food. Or nothing but cookie dough. Or nothing but celery. Where is the distinction? Are the manufacturers of cookie dough and the growers of celery trying to kill me merely because chronic over indulgence of their product on my part might result in health problems?