I am against safety regulations (including rail safety regulations) because they:

• involve force which I am against
• are based on assumptions that I think are wrong
• (from time to time) succeed in making things even more dangerous than they were in the first place.

So, force...

Yes, there are two main forms.  The first, in the form of: “Do this or we’ll hurt you in some way.” which is there to enforce the regulation itself.  And the second, in the form of: “Pay your taxes or we’ll hurt you in some way.” which is there to pay for the enforcers.

And the assumptions...

The main one is that there is a collective “right” level of danger.  This is followed by the assumption that the free market won’t provide it or, at least, something pretty close to it.  I just don’t accept that there is such a collective level.  There are individual levels, for sure.  We all have them and pretty well know what they are.  We are exposed to them every time we find ourselves in a car driven by someone we consider to be a lunatic.  But the point is that they are all different.  We all desire different levels of safety.  The “right” level is a personal and individual thing.

The point is that with safety being a personal thing there is no need for collective action.  If you think something is dangerous, whether it be flying, taking the train or getting into the car with that lunatic, then don’t do it.

But what if you have to?  What if it is part of your job?

Then get a different job.

But what if you can’t?

Well, just think for a minute what you are saying.  You do your job for a reason.  Presumably, for the money or perhaps, some other benefit.  When you say you “can’t” get another job what you are actually saying is that your current job including risks beats unemployment. In other words that you think the job is the best available option.

So, we’re stuck, then?

Not at all.  There is every reason to think that market forces will provide precisely the sort of safer world that many people want.

How?

Plain old supply and demand.  When people are poor they tend to be concerned with the basics such as food and shelter.  Safety takes a back seat.  But as they get richer, safety becomes more important. A classic example is cars.  When Lee Iacocca, according to his auto-biography, was a car salesman in the 1950s he came to the conclusion that safety didn’t sell.  But over the last twenty years or so, as demand has changed, we have seen the introduction of ABS, air bags, crash zones and all sorts of other safety measures. In other words, safety most definitely does sell.  The same applies employers who can provide a safe working environment.

But what’s the incentive for the employers?

Better employees, cheaper employees, happier employees, lower training costs.

You mentioned safety regulations making things more dangerous.

Yes, I am compiling a list (warning: short).

Permalink • Safety • Last Updated: 24 September 2006

Nothing yet but you never know...

Post a Comment

Name:

Email:

URL:

Add a Smiley

<b>

<i>

<u>

quote

code

@

<a>

Close Tags

Remember my personal information

Submit the word you see below:

The trackback URL for this entry is: