In response to:

Creating a Risk-Free World

Beircheart2 Wrote: May 09, 2012 10:55 AM
I absolutely agree, belts save lives and Stossel's use of hyperbole, giving him the benefit of the doubt, weakens his argument, but what exactly is his argument? Is it about seat belts? I didn't get that. It was about the appropriate levels of interference an external government should have over our being allowed to make these decisions for ourselves. His point is that, left to the individual to decide, auto makers would create safer vehicles as a selling point, insurance companies would offer incentives to promote safer behavior, and in general, things would be better than they are from lawmaker mandates.
A child leaving home alone for the first time takes a risk. So does the entrepreneur who opens a new business. I no more want government to prevent us from doing these things than I want it to keep us in padded cells.

Everyone has a different tolerance for risk. One person takes out a second mortgage to start a business. Another thinks that sounds nerve-racking, if not insane. Neither person is wrong. Government cannot know each person's preferences, or odds of success.

Even if it did, what right does it have to tell them what to do?

When government gets...