Michael Perelman writes: >> David, the problem with the Pinto is that the government does not >> adequately regulate safety -- not even to the extent of making relevant >> information available -- so the regulation is left to the lawsuits -- a >> very inefficient way of doing things. >> >> A few bucks for a protective gasket would not have meant that much. In >> hindsight it was stupid, but very costly for a number of innocent >> people.
I don't have a strong opinion on whether regulation should be done by legislation or litigation -- it seems like a peripheral issue. The fundamental issue is how the rule maker (whether bureaucrat, judge or jury) should determine whether the specific regulation/conduct is good/bad, and I don't see any rational alternative to cost/benefit analysis, because cost/benefit analysis is simply another way of saying there are competing values and tradeoffs in every decision that have to be addressed. For instance, "safety" is not an absolute value that takes precedence overy everything else. That is evidenced by how people actually live their lives, and that fact must be taken into consideration when determining appropriate rules. I realize that many people react instinctively to a doctrine that assumes deaths, places a monetary value on human life, but instinctive distate is not a very compelling objection. David Shemano
