Economics - General

300

John Quiggin153 Comments

Victoria suffered just under 300 deaths in road crashes in 2010. That’s a tragedy nearly every day, but it’s still a small fraction of the toll exacted by motor vehicles 40 years ago, when the road toll peaked at 1061 in 1970 (at at time when there were fewer people and many fewer cars). I couldn’t find a graph for Victoria but here is one for Australia as a whole, showing the same pattern with a slight lag as other states followed Victoria.

Anyone my age or older will remember that, after decades of accepting steadily increasing death rates as the price of mobility, Victorian governments of both political persuasions finally took the politically courageous step of enforcing higher safety standards – first seat belts and automative design rules, then effective techniques to catch and convict speeders and drink drivers, then helmet laws and more stringent license testing, among many others. Victoria’s interventions were eventually followed by other governments in Australia and elsewhere, but the lags are such that Victoria has gone from having some of the most dangerous roads in the world to having some of the safest. Nevertheless, and not surprisingly, these steps aroused plenty of opposition at the time, and the opponents were able to produce supposed experts to back their arguments.

What might seem more surprising is that even after four decades in which their claims have been refuted beyond any reasonable doubt, the same experts are still pushing the same discredited lines, and still finding a ready audience. With a closer look at the experts and their audience, this fact is perhaps less surprising, but still requires some explanation.

The arguments against road safety interventions are of two kinds, though they often intertwine. The first involve arguments against specific interventions, for example
* Seat belts increase the risk of death because people may be trapped in their cars rather than being “thrown clear”
* Variance in speed of vehicles matters more than average speed so we shouldn’t enforce speed limits
* Speed cameras/breath test machines are unreliable and give lots of false positives
* Restrictive vehicle design rules will raise costs, leading people to buy older/cheaper cars and reducing safety
None of these arguments stand up well to scrutiny, but I don’t propose to discuss them here. I’ll set up a sandpit for people who want to argue about specific cases.

The second is a general argument, purporting to show that any regulatory intervention to increase safety will be ineffective (although it is sometimes applied inconsistently by people who oppose some interventions but not others). The central idea is that any reduction in risk below the level that would arise in the absence of intervention will lead people to take more risks, wiping out (or, in some versions, more than wiping out) the first round benefits.

This kind of argument has been advanced (apparently without much cross-acknowledgement) by economists of whom the most notable is Sam Peltzman, under the name ‘rebound effect’, and by geographers, including John Adams, under the name “risk homeostasis”.[1] Adams in particular likes to cite “Smeed’s Law” a statistical relationship first estimated in 1949, which showed that, as the number of vehicles increased, the number of road deaths increases, but less than proportionally. Victoria fitted the Smeed’s Law pretty well until 1970, after which deaths fell sharply while the number of vehicles continued to rise. Nevertheless, Adams has continued to claim that both Smeed’s Law and risk homeostasis fit the data.

Of course, it’s not unusual to see academics pushing their pet theories long after the evidence has turned against them, and some degree of stubbornness in the face of contrary evidence is desirable – sometimes the disconfirming data is wrong, or is driven by a run of chance events. And, as anyone who has followed such debates will know, it’s always possible to tweak the data until you get the result you want. But you would think by now that the stunning success of Victoria’s interventions would have produced at least some admission that the theory and the data don’t fit too well. Not a bit of it. Adams, Peltzman and others are still behaving as if Victoria’s interventions had produced the increase in fatalities they predicted, and, as I mentioned, still getting plenty of airplay from prominent thinktanks.

The explanation of course is that Adams and Peltzman are libertarians, and the thinktanks that back them are similarly inclined. Peltzman checks just about all the US boxes – professor of economics at Chicago, fellow of AEI, Cato. Adams isn’t such a joiner, but he is clear enough on the political implications of the argument. For example, in explaining persistent belief in the effectiveness of seat belt laws, Adams writes

Why should the government be so assiduously promoting and inflating this myth? It has ready access to the numbers that disprove it. I offer a simple, cynical, explanation: it feeds the larger myth of the efficacy of government.

And, surprise, Adams is a global warming “sceptic”, quoting such eminent authorities as Benny Peiser.

There are obvious reasons why libertarians would like to believe that road safety laws are ineffective and that global warming is a hoax or fraud.[1] It is of course, possible to argue that, regardless of the benefits of seat belts, people should not be forced to wear them, but that argument doesn’t work for speed traps, RBT, and so on, unless you want to try the extreme Coasian view that such matters should be settled by voluntary agreement (Adams gives this view a nod in his paper Risky Business). Issues like road safety and global warming make it clear that our everyday actions such as driving a car impinge on each other in critical ways that can’t be resolved through the spontaneous operation of market mechanisms.

Sometimes, as with road safety, there is little alternative to direct interventions of the kind pioneered by Victoria. In other cases, as with global warming there is a choice between direct regulation (specifying permissible designs for all kinds of electrical equipment for example) and measures like carbon taxes and emissions trading which, while relying on government action in the first place, leave a lot of the hard work to market processes. A sensible libertarianism would seek to identify the latter cases and present arguments for market-oriented mechanisms.

Sadly, while there are individuals with libertarian inclinations who argue in this way, the libertarian movement as a whole has chosen the path of magical thinking, hoping that if they can keep coming up with debating points, problems like global warming will go away. The libertarian think tanks in the US and Australia are uniformly delusionist on climate change, as are the great majority of individual commentators who self-identify as libertarians[3] [4].

I suspect (and hope) there may be quite a few libertarians who aren’t that comfortable with the anti-science wishful thinking displayed on these issues, but prefer not to pick a fight with their fellow libertarians on an issue that may appear peripheral to their own concerns. I would urge any such to think again. Once intellectual standards are debased in this way, the damage cannot be contained. Bad arguments are accepted because they produce comfortable conclusions, or because they are put forward by political allies. This works (in a way) as long as you can assume that all the correct answers are known, having been revealed in some sacred text or another. But they imply (and reveal in the case of climate change) a total incapacity to deal with anything new. It’s not surprising, as I mentioned not long ago, that the free-market right hasn’t come up with any new ideas in decades. Like other movements that began with a radical openness to new ideas, they have become locked into a dogmatic orthodoxy, immune from empirical refutation.

fn1. Also put forward by psychologist Gerard Wilde.

fn2. It would be similarly convenient for socialists to believe that people aren’t motivated by economic incentives (or wouldn’t be if their consciousness was properly raised) – a large part of the disaster of communism was the attempt to act on this belief.

fn3. I should say that I haven’t seen anything specific from Peltzman on climate change. But, if he believes that the thinktanks with which he is prominently associated are badly wrong on a major scientific and policy issue, he ought to say so.

fn4. I am not interested in hearing from libertarians who conform to this stereotype, but I will establish a sandpit for those who feel impelled to restate their allegiance to tribal orthodoxy (with or without hedges and qualifications). On the other hand, if anyone wants to self-identify as a libertarian who accepts mainstream science as represented by, say, the IPCC or all the scientific academies in the world, I will certainly be interested.

153 thoughts on “300”

  1. There is another aspect to this John. In the endless debate of cost effectiveness public vs private transport the costs of injury are rarely discussed. UQ made a reasonable effort to quantify it, I have seen other studies that support it, the cost is $17B per year not including the pain and grief.

    http://www.uq.edu.au/news/index.html?article=9863

  2. I am more-or-less a libertarian and I certainly agree that the safety regulations have been effective. And I don’t know personally anyone who believes otherwise, though there is a not-unreasonable argument about bike helmets.
    The US has had nothing like the reduction we have had, partly because they are unwilling to have RBT or to enforce seat belt laws but also because, going back to Ralph Nader, the prevailing philosophy on road safety has been to engineer cars better rather than to change behavior. It’s interesting to speculate how many would still be alive if Nader had used his strong influence to push in the other direction.
    JQ I think your view of libertarians contains quite a lot of straw. There are ( I am sure) people who reject any regulation of behavior but a belief in maximum freedom from government actually cover a pretty wide range of attitudes. Rather like social democrats.
    Very few, one either side of the spectrum, believe in absolutes though it suits some (on both sides) to pretend that their opponents do.

  3. Ken N, I agree with you on Nader.

    On whether I have a strawman view, you could certainly strengthen your case with an unequivocal endorsement of mainstream science on AGW, especially if you presented it at Catallaxy.

  4. John, I’m not sure whether there is a mistake in regards to Urban Melbourne but on another site there are 99 registered fatalities and not 144.

  5. Maybe a definitional difference – urban v metropolitan? I don’t think it can affect the total for the state, which is all that matters for this post.

  6. Nice switch JQ. I thought the subject was road safety.
    I have, many times, said at Catallaxy that I accept the consensus scientific view on AGW.
    I think that some of the scientists have damaged themselves and their cause by behaving like politicians – which they do badly.
    Anyway, I said at Catallaxy the other day that the argument about AGW has become pointless – no-one is going to convince anyone to change his or her mind – here or at Catallaxy or anywhere else.

  8. “On the other hand, if anyone wants to self-identify as a libertarian who accepts mainstream science as represented by, say, the IPCC or all the scientific academies in the world, I will certainly be interested.”

    *raises hand*

    In fact I’m over on Catallaxy right now trying to get someone to accept some basic scientific facts.

    In case anyone is interested, I do believe a carbon tax can be justified by libertarian principles. See here:

    In the case of AGW, a cost (and risk of much greater costs) is being imposed on the world at large by the emissions of various people and industries. However, because this cost is not being solely borne by the emitters, they benefit at everyone else’s expense. That goes against the user-pays ethos of libertarianism, not to mention violating economic efficiency.

    So in that sense, a carbon tax is a Pigouvian tax, correcting the market imbalance that exists. It reduces distortion rather than increasing it.

  9. That’s fine Ken, happy to go back to road safety now. As you well know, the great majority of the Catallaxy crew are reflexively opposed to all kinds of road safety measures, and argue about this in exactly the same way as wrt global warming. That is, a combination of silly talking points and selective citation of the minority of studies that come out with negative conclusions on an particular issue.

    And it’s not just Catallaxy – CIS, Miranda Devine, and many others take the same line.

  10. Thanks Jarrah. I wish you well, and agree that there is no good reason for the tribal opposition of (most) libertarians to market-based policy responses to climate change.

  11. A significant part of the reduction in deaths over this period must also be attributable to improvements in the safety and design of vehicles driven not by regulation, but by consumer preferences and the market. And as people become wealthier, they can afford to purchase cars with more safety features.

    That is not to deny that some of the reduction in road deaths is due to regulation. But I think the figures may exaggerate the case somewhat.

    Another issue is that to the extent that costs of accidents are socialized, this creates moral hazard. For example, if helmets and seat belts were not compulsory those who were injured would still impose costs on society through the public health system and compulsory insurance and the like. Increased freedom is only sustainable if individuals incur more of the costs of their own poor choices. Socializing more risks requires increased regulation to offset moral hazard.

  12. You mean the Victorians actually “regulated” less road deaths in?? Surprise, surprise…maybe we can also “regulate” less finacial sector scams out and less exploitation of workers out as well..

    Well I must be an old fashioned sort of person who actually believes regulation is better for an orderly society….but Ill wait for the “de reg” nutcases to tell me Im wrong, as usual…

  13. I don’t think that is right about the great majority of the “Catallaxy crew” JQ.
    CIS has not said much at all about AGW or road safety so far as I have seen. IPA certainly is anti-AGW.
    Both the left and the right stereotype those on the other side, which I think is a pity. Many times in history bad things have happened because evil beliefs have been bundled up and attributed to another social group.

  14. “And it’s not just Catallaxy – CIS, Miranda Devine, and many others take the same line.”

    Miranda Devine is still a big fan of the War on Drugs. So I am not sure how she qualifies as a loony libertarian. And the CIS is generally more conservative than libertarian.

  17. I really dont know about anyone else….but I find the de reg manic outfit have gone past the point of their usefulness and are now startuing to cause some pretty horrific problems..

    Lets take Bernie Madoff for example..now someone tell me how a ponzi scheme of monumental proportions lasted so long and stole from so many if the financial market regulators were on top of things????

    They arent on top of anything because the “de reg” nutcases had their day in the sun, to a lot of people’s detriment. We need balance (via regulation) not dreams, via dreamers.

  18. @ken n
    Just be patient Ken – there will be a bite…someone telling me I have things all wrong and that its the government that stuffs things up and if only we shot allm politicians, removed all regulation…we would be delivered, not to the wild west frontier of being ruled by bikie gangs, but to Nirvana…

    at this moment we should all pray to the god of liberty….

  19. I’m a bit of a libertarian on this issue actually. I certainly don’t doubt the mainstream scientific (or your economic) opinion on AGW or the efficacy of regulations in reducing the road toll, but I oppose seatbelt and helmet laws nonetheless. In fact, I would oppose these laws even if failing to wear a seatbelt/helmet was shown to be certain to cause death.

    My objection is purely a philosophical one. I don’t believe society has the moral right to force a rational adult to be safe. In fact, I find utilitarian arguments against helmet/seatbelt rules distasteful. I prefer to bite the bullet and accept more fatalities in exchange for less totalitarianism.

    Drink driving and speeding laws on the other hand, are completely different. Society absolutely has the right to punish anti-social and dangerous behaviour. In fact, I would add something else that should be policed; following distance (esp. on highways). I think speed cameras should watch the gap between cars and fine tail-gaters. This would require only a software update on existing hardware, and would help reduce the toll enormously.

  20. Ho yes, one remembers well the old days, circa nineteen seventy. Badly designed roads with blind corners, souped up cars dragging off cops in the abscence of radar traps, driving blotto socially desirable in some quarters, let alone tolerated and so on.
    What a shock, the day we were out for a sunday spin and got nailed with our first radar trap. Then the shock when breathalysers came a few years later: was a man not permitted even the consolation of a “so-shall” drink with mates at the local tavern, as one convalesced from the myriad injustices inflicted on one by women, bosses, social security etc.
    Driving cabs in the early eighties, it struck me as ridiculous that I would be taking home people who would have stayed relatively sober anyway, whilst the hard core confederates who should have been in the cab, were getting as full and still driving home blotto, as a game, using the rat routes.
    In Adelaide we nowadays have deaths down to about 150 people pa against 360 pa odd, forty years agom thge trend indicated by prof Quiggin.
    I think a contributing factor could be the limiting of cigarette smoking at pubs- may as well stay at home with a slab, if you’re a drinker (which I haven’t been for a couple of decades), along with heavy duty surveillance that seems to go on now, at the once sacred sanctuary that was an old fashioned pub.

  24. You see Ken? Catallyxy is far more often wrong than the Prof in whom and what it supports…

    really this stuff would be certifiable now…regulation has when it comes to road deaths (pardon me for saying so) actually worked???

  26. rog, I said nothing about IPA except that they are anti-AGW.
    And you are using the old “linked with” journalism trick. IPA is not “promoted” at Catallaxy – sometimes it is mentioned or quoted.
    There seems to be a view that if anyone on a site mentions something or someone that amounts to a wholesale endorsement. JQ is making the same mistake quoting one article by one person in a CIS publication. I do not agree with Buckingham though I am happy for CIS to publish his views.
    Catallaxy, CIS and IPA carry a diversity of views. I prefer that to an insistence that everything published sticks to a party line

  27. OT. I agree that the case that compulsory bike helmets did not reduce head injuries seems wrong.
    The stronger anti-helmet argument is that they discourage cycling – particularly among women – and the “health cost” of that outweighs the head injury risk. The British Medical Association looked at the issue a few years ago and came to that conclusion.
    Compulsory helmets also makes schemes like the Paris Velib just about impossible.
    I am a cyclist and always wear a hemet whether or not it is compulsory in the country I am in.
    But it is not a cut and dried issue – as the fact that Autralia and NZ are the only countries with helmet laws suggests.

  28. Ken, many of the posts are from IPA associates and often include a ref. to the IPA. I really can’t tell the difference the views expressed on Catallaxy, IPA and News Ltd. – they often include the tag something along the line “excellent article from IPA/WSJ/Australian”

  30. Apples with oranges ken, Australia has little to no regard for cyclists – our roads are for vehicles end of story.

  31. While I wouldn’t call myself a libertarian on the Political Compass test I come way down in the left quadrant, showing strongly libertarian tendencies. However, I draw quite a strong line between being libertarian and ideological libertarianism.

    I would contend that a truly libertarian society, one that essentially devolves most decisions back to the individual, must also be a fundamentally equal society in terms of access to resources, both physical and cultural.

    The fact that both our major parties are authoritarian rather than libertarian is reflected in the law they pursue. While their purpose is to control, as a libertarian society their intent would be to enable with laws that, for example, penalise excessive income differentials or set targets for housing affordability. Instead we get the Northern Territory intervention and funding for wealthy private schools.

    On the other hand I see ideological libertarianism as the abandonment of existential reality for the pursuit of libertarian ideals that, as with most ideologies, seeks to define the existential reality by sheer force of erudition. This would be the ‘think tank’ version, normally pursued venomously against all evidence and for ulterior motives that one can only surmise beggar belief.

    I would label it the “no-control” version of libertarianism, the sort that one may occasionally wish to practice on others, but in reality would not want practiced on oneself. Being totally done over is not a nice feeling.

    This does tend to leave me in an ambivalent position on road safety, supporting such initiatives as RBT’s as an equalising factor (we’re safer to assume none of us are drunk), supporting initiatives such as vehicle standards and seat belts on the evidence, but more skeptical on the application of speed restrictions, again particularly in places like the Northern Territory.

    As to AGW, to anyone who understands the philosophy of science, that is, how science works, would have no trouble with both uncertainty and ambiguity while accepting, as the majority of world scientists do, that there is no better theory to fit the existing facts.

    But hey, no point telling an ideological libertarian that.

  32. I see that libertarians are strong on the rights of the individual and weak on the rights of others.

    Their attitude to victims – don’t be one.

  33. The seatbelt argument was one that affected me very directly – twice, in fact. The first time was when we installed seat belts in the back, where the “seat” was one long bench. I didn’t crack my skull, and I didn’t lose my sister. My mother got whiplash (as did I, most likely), but that is a heck of a lot less painful than what my aunt’s family went through when hit head-on (these crashes pre-date things like the Fraser Gvt, but the exact dates don’t matter). In my aunt’s family the only person who remained in the car, post-crash, was my uncle who could see as the driver that due to the on-coming idiot, a crash was a certainty; he braced by placing his hands on the car roof and pushing as hard as he physically could, and somehow he remained seated – or perhaps he was just plain lucky and bracing didn’t make any difference. Either way, three children and an adult hit the pavement after moving through glass windows or the front windscreen. My uncle was the least injured of all of them, by a long long long shot. This head-on was on the open highway.

    The argument about seatbelts being shoved down our throats by governments intent on restricting our freedoms doesn’t garner much support among either of our families. How about the freedom not to be cleaned up by a P-plater who injures you more severely than himself, simply because he sees the crash he has instigated as about to happen, and prepares for the impact. Or the dickhead who can’t leave the drink at home and takes it onto the open highway? How about the freedom of not having those incompetents anywhere near the roads?

    Enough of the subjective. It is always worthwhile having some kind of argy-bargy about whether this measure or that is an effective expenditure of “tax-payers’ money” or not. The rot sets in when the extremist views are trotted out (by the free press, often enough) as though they are a) cognisant of the facts, b) are experts in the subject matter, and c) not extremists but rather the “other side of the debate”. Debates on public policy issues surely don’t have to be so dichotomous, especially where the obvious parameters of significance are from a spectrum of values, rather than just yes/no type values. Actually, this post has in a way reminded me that 40 years of political argument concerning policies has not changed much at all.

    PS: Liberty for the individual gets more difficult as more individuals pop up. How will libertarians handle the encroachment of so many other people? Ignore them? [Guffaw!]

    PPS: Happy New Year all!

  34. This is getting silly, JQ and rog. You are trawling through websites looking for evidence of “wrong thoughts” with which to condemn the organisations behind them.
    Aha! Found one – that proves they are evil.
    No thanks, I’m not playing.

  35. You are quite correct about seat belts DO. The rest of your comment builds a straw man.
    I repeat what i said earlier:
    “Both the left and the right stereotype those on the other side, which I think is a pity. Many times in history bad things have happened because evil beliefs have been bundled up and attributed to another social group.”

  36. @Donald Oats
    Happy new year Donald Oats!
    Seatbelts are a great idea and everyone should wear them. I wear one whenever I get in a car. Auto-makers should be forced to install them in every new vehicle made. It’s fantastic that your family was saved from serious injury by this marvelous invention.

    But.

    None of this gives the government the moral right to punish adults who choose not to wear one.

  37. What’s this I’ve read from back in the thread: “IPA, Catalepsy, etc carry a divergence of opinion not present at some sites” (not verbatim).
    wft…(rofl)…one tree does NOT a forest make, any more than a biased assertion, a fact creates..

  38. A candidate for the NSW state election believes (a) there should be effectively no police action on hoon behaviour on the roads and (b) all speed limits should be instantly removed, leaving individuals to decide what speed they think is safe on a given road, and then, over time, the sum of all those judgements would give you the correct speed limit for that road. The mind boggles on what would be the road toll while this assessment was being done – this seems to me often the case with the “get rid of all regs” libertarian theories.

  40. Ken, you initiated the topic of the IPA by implying that the IPA have no opinion on road safety and then when presented with a link to the IPA expressing an opinion on road safety you say that “you are not playing.”

    What exactly is it that you are not playing?

  43. Since the multi pronged approach to road safety which continues despite deteriorating roads and increasing vehicles there has been a significant drop in road deaths although it is still high. There is no doubt that high levels of visible policing keeps speed down and concentration up. The laws about not using mobile phones while driving are also well founded and limitations on the number of passengers in P plate cars are also a good idea. The free market would not have improved safety standards by itself but required governments to insist but the improved design has helped as much as limitations on the freedom to behave anti-socially.

    All of these things impinge on individual freedom because the results of that individual freedom means bad results for others. The police having to inform relatives that someone has died because they as an individual decided to drink and drive or to not wear a seatbelt or both, results in trauma for those officers who have this as their job and the ambulance crews who attend accidents. If the individual doesn’t die then the costs to the community and the family of the individual are enormous (even if it does raise GDP).

    This is like Climate change where lots of individuals make lots of decisions which may not impact on them directly (or may) but where their individual action results in poor futures for others.

    It’s the “I’m all right Jack” mentality which beleives we are isolated beings making rational decisions rather than emotional, self involved individuals, who fail to see beyond our particular cacoon. The recent study which found that those on the right are hard wired with larger sections of their brain devoted to emotional reactions and therefore impervious to rational argument sounds very convincing to me.

  44. Having researched these areas a bit I think there is some evidence of a rebound effect from safety equipment in cars. Its just moral hazard – people feel safer and take more risks. My understanding is that while the number of accidents has increased the number of serious accidents – deaths – has fallen. (There is also claimed to be adverse selection effects with bad drivers choosing safe cars like Volvos and then deriving like lunatics!)

    On traffic density the more cars on the road the more accikdents occur. The evidence for Japan and the US is very clear. But there is again a squabble about whether because speeds slow with more congestion you get less serious accidents. Really need a good study in Australia of the insurance claims data – we have very poor information about the causes of car accidents in this country.

    The evidence is that the death toll on the road has fallen. The factors that determine that are disputed but I think most agree that the drink driving laws have had a huge impact.

  45. I think the attitudes to climate change at Catallaxy are hopelessly hypocritical. Many people who post there say they endorse AGW theories but attack them on every possible occasion with objections that have been refuted many times.

    Ken N I agree with John. How about a post that simply endorses the conventional science of climate change and which clearly identifies the status of delusional theories in relation to the consensus?

  47. @Sam
    Interesting comment of yours:

    But.

    None of this gives the government the moral right to punish adults who choose not to wear one.

    Why not? If we accept, for the sake of argument, that your claim has some foundation, it seems perfectly reasonable to apply the same principal claim to other situations of the same logical class as the seatbelts situation. To set up the basic argument, somewhat stylised:

    * Death or serious injury from car crashes may be significantly reduced if car passengers and driver wear seatbelts.
    * Government(s) introduce policy that makes seatbelts compulsory in all vehicles.
    * Government(s) want car passengers to wear the provided seatbelts.
    * Government(s) therefore make it compulsory to use them.
    * Government(s) enforce compliance by punishing non-compliance, usually by way of fines.

    At this point you would say: But. This does not give the government the moral right to punish adults who choose not to wear seatbelts.

    A more abstract version is the following:
    * Horrible thing A may be significantly reduced if people do B when in situation C.
    * Government(s) want people to do B when in situation C.
    * Government(s) therefore make it compulsory to do B, when in situation C.
    * Government(s) enforce compliance by punishing non-compliance, usually by way of fines.
    At this point I guess you would raise the objection: “But. This does not give government(s) the moral right to punish adults who do not comply.”
    Which may or may not be true. However, what if a waiver scheme applied? You could sign a waiver once only, saying that you understand the risks of not doing B when in situation C, and that you therefore are willing to freely accept the consequences of your decision not to comply. It seems that this would work for any other class that satisfies the basic schema outlined above, in terms of A, B, and C.

    One difficulty though, is that your choice of non-compliance infringes upon other people having the choice of avoiding consequences that may result from your non-compliance. To illustrate, let us take a similar case, namely the one of speeding. Here goes:
    As for the seatbelts case, A = extra fatalities or more severe injuries; B = stay under the advised speed limit; C = advised speed limit in effect. In this case driving over the speed limit is the equivalent of not wearing seatbelt. Looks good, right? You could sign a waiver, saying that you understand and accept the consequences (of driving above the speed limit), and therefore you are not to be fined for “failure to comply”.
    The problem is that if you drive over the speed limit, especially by a markedly large amount, you subject others to the consequences of the risks that you, personally, are willing to assume. A car crash, all other things being equal, causes more extensive injuries the greater the speed of the colliding vehicle(s). How does your right to assert that you accept the risks, get translated into another person’s right not to be hit by a vehicle travelling above the speed limit?

    Moral rights get quite murky here; especially so, because on the one hand we are discussing a statistical argument involving reduction in harm, and on the other the right of a single individual to say no, include me out.

  48. ” Ken N I agree with John. How about a post that simply endorses the conventional science of climate change and which clearly identifies the status of delusional theories in relation to the consensus?”
    hc one of the many annoying things about all this is the way people are expected to pass some kind of purity test and to repeat their affirmation of it frequently.
    I accept the consensus science on AGW. I have said that many times. You want me to denounce the non-believers. I will not do that, beyond saying that I think they are wrong. I am glad that some do not accept the majority view – I say the same about socialism, extreme free-market views and many other things. That is I suppose why I lean towards the libertarian end of the spectrum
    None of us here or at Catallaxy or Deltoid have the science or the data to judge whether the AGW theories are right or wrong. So we are arguing about which scientists to believe. I accept the views of the majority. I am glad that there are some who are courageous enough to dissent. I do not think they are deluded, denialist or evil.
    The really foolish part of all this is that what we think or say or believe does not matter one jot. Nothing turns on our belief. I am not even sure that the belief of anyone in Australia matters.
    I still agree with Rudd’s policy before Copenhagen – we should no no more and no less than the rest of the world.
    My guess is that the world will not agree to do anything significant about carbon emissions so our efforts will be best spent on planning adaptation strategies.
    I will repost this at Catallaxy.

  50. “Ken, you initiated the topic of the IPA by implying that the IPA have no opinion on road safety and then when presented with a link to the IPA expressing an opinion on road safety you say that “you are not playing.”

    Remind me where I did that rog. My reference to IPA was
    “IPA certainly is anti-AGW.”

    Does that imply they are also against road safety rules?

Leave a comment