Kenneth Campbell writes: >> >[...] "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. >> >> This is the heart of it. >> >> To use your own words: "how people actually live their lives." >> >> The reason most of the people are on this list is that most of the >> people (who are not on this list) do not have control of the way they >> "actually live their lives." Their lives are determined by economic >> forces that are really more akin to weather. (Not controllable by >> themselves. "I can only buy a Pinto, not a Lexus." You call that "free >> will" I call it economic coercion.)
I was thinking more along the lines of rich people who buy sports cars rather than Volvos, or who love riding motorcycles. I was thinking about the following thought experiment. Assume that taking a car from point A to point B would take 30 minutes, and the chance of dying during the ride was 1 in one million. Assume that taking public transportation from point A to point B would take 60 minutes, and the chance of dying was 1 in ten million. I am willing to bet quite a significant percentage of the population would take the car, and I just don't think you can blame that on bourgeois property relations. Even taking your example into consideration, let's imagine a lack of "economic coercion." Actually, I can't imagine it. In any event, let's assume that the law requires every car have the safety of a Lexus and everybody can afford a Lexus. Fine. But then a new car comes on the market that is safer than a Lexus, but costs a lot more. Conceptually, you are right back where you are today, where the poor can buy a used Pinto. David Shemano
