 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tires, beef, corn, and baby toys do not, at initial blush, appear to have much in common. Each, however, represents an example of a dangerous trend threatening the health and future of free enterprise in our country. Beyond the negative, practical consequences of the attitudes underlying these problem areas, there are serious implications for how the principles underpinning our American culture are being slowly eroded. If we do not denounce and fight to reverse these treacherous currents, we will find ourselves drowning in those swirling waters.
The recent debacle of Firestone tires shedding their treads on sports utility vehicles (especially those on Ford vehicles) had many people complaining about the inadequacies of the marketplace. Ford owners, media commentators, politicians, and the usual suspects clamored for protection from the corporate monsters selling them the products they desire. Only the heavy hand of government, they proclaimed, could right these heinous wrongs.
Never remiss in leaping precipitously into the fray (and seizing on yet another pretext to extend the power of the State), Congress passed a law that literally turned an issue of product liability into a federal case. Manufacturers may soon find themselves branded as criminals for mistakes they make in bringing their products to market.
Of course, the marketplace was functioning just fine, thank you. Business owners, for example, zealously guard their good names. No one becomes hugely successful in selling their products with a bad reputation. Just ask Firestone how far down the hole their tire sales dropped after the airwaves filled with dire stories detailing the supposedly shoddy workmanship of their products. Loss of reputation plus normally filed lawsuits for compensation normally suffice to protect the interests of consumers.
(Though even Firestone's culpability is far from being confirmed. Under-inflation suggested by Ford [for greater ride comfort] combined with operation in high-heat environments may prove more accurate explanations than tires that were made when [gasp] union workers were on strike.)
The politicians favorite retort, however, characterizes this unfortunate situation as it has innumerable times in the past when the politicos rushed to "do something" to address a supposed crisis:
"Don't confuse us with the facts!"
(Think anti-self-defense laws; anti-terrorist legislation; environmental dictates...actually, ninety-nine percent of the laws inflicted on the rest of us. Too many bills are rushed through in the heated emotional residue of a "crisis" that rarely is of any particular urgency.)
Not to be outdone by the American Congress, our European cousins freely indulge in their own heavy-handed edicts to "protect" their citizenry from the evils of capitalist progress. The European Commission, for example, refuses to permit the introduction of any growth hormones into animals there. The fact that the commission's own evidence contradicted its position did not phase the members.
Many nations in the European Union (EU) also reject the importation of genetically modified grains from the United States. For farmers in my home state of Iowa, this ban represents a significant market loss. This European eco-stance is especially ironic since the widespread adoption of genetically modified corn or rice is more environmentally friendly. Farmers are able to spread less pesticide on crops which have a built-in defense against bugs and worms. Thus, less of the pesticides the eco-fascists abhor ends up in run-off making its way into our waterways or on the veggies they urge us to consume. (Plus, even without genetic manipulation, most plants naturally produce their own pesticides, evolutionarily designed to protect them from their insectoid enemies. Well over ninety-percent of human exposure to such substances is inherent in the foods we eat.)
The Greens' resistance to genetic modification of food crops also condemns many of the poor people they supposedly champion to a worse diet than they might otherwise enjoy. Gene-modification can reduce spoilage and increase production and shelf-life. It can even add vitamins or other needed nutrients lacking in the "natural" product. By doing this, gene-mod techniques can help impoverished consumers avoid certain deficiencies they might otherwise have to endure.
Those compassionate souls guarding us from the rapacious capitalists have been working overtime of late. Remember the scare these folks instilled in countless mothers by shrilly fretting about the phthalate plasticisers (softeners) used by the makers of various baby toys? Hey, why pay attention to the forty-year history of safe usage of such softeners and the research indicating their lack of harm? "Phthalate plasticisers" has got to be one of those nefarious chemicals permeating our environment and foisted upon us by a greedy chemical industry with no thought for the well-being of consumers.
("Chemicals" have become a synonym for the wily ways of evil business owners. If it has "chemicals" in it, a product has to be nasty, unsavory, and unnecessary. The fact that essentially everything in the world -- including us -- is made up of "chemicals" does not faze the fanatics. They would rather remove chlorine from water supplies and watch people die from water-borne diseases than sit idly by while capitalists reap their profits...or ban DDT and condemn millions to disease and death from malaria.)
Stores have removed apples, carpet and cloth stain protectors, and cold and allergy pills from shelves because of unwarranted allegations of harm to the purchasing public.
These and innumerable other examples represent two related problems. One is reliance on the false "precautionary principle." The second is the irrational demand that entrepreneurs be omniscient in how they conduct their pursuits.
The "precautionary principle" has seeped in the collective psyche of the developed world. This so-called principle states that if there is the slightest conceivable (not even necessarily probable) chance of harm resulting from some action (usually and unfairly limited to commercial actions), the State should prevent that action from occurring or prohibit it from continuing.
Nearly always, of course, those advocating such "better safe than sorry" policies conveniently focus solely on the costs or negative consequences of an action but never on an action's benefits.
A simple case shows the absurdity of such a mind-set if it were to be applied with consistency. Living in wooden houses, for examples, increases the risks of your dwelling burning down (and you dying in the fire). Yet this risk to our health and safety is far less than if we still lived in non-flammable stone caves as did our primitive ancestors. To look in the other direction, builders could construct houses with nearly zero risk of going up in flames or succumbing to hurricanes, tornadoes, or earthquakes. But such homes would be prohibitively expensive except for a small portion of the population.
You could make similar comparisons for cars: building them with the safety of tanks would price them out of reach and require ridiculously low gas mileages; the flip side of this is demanding higher and higher gas mileages that lead to lighter and lighter cars in which drivers and passengers are less able to survive a crash; lowering speed limits to levels where the chance of crash fatalities would be nonexistent would indirectly kill more people when food and other services failed to reach consumers in time; banning cell phones in cars or requiring drivers to pull over may actually lead to a net increase in deaths during emergencies or in comparison to other driver distractions; more cars leads to more air pollution but less threat of disease compared to the waste produced by horse-drawn conveyances.
The "precautionary principle" throws any sense of proportion to the wind. Every new invention, every new technological advance, every new product or process entails different risks, some greater, some less, some merely different. The introduction of electricity, natural gas heating, nuclear energy, airplanes, cars, computers, new medicines and surgeries, new farming techniques, and on and on all result in certain dangers. Yet we would all be worse off without them. (Indeed, without such progress, there would be billions fewer of us to argue about such nonsense as the "precautionary principle.")
Such anti-progress proponents are, in essential, committing the fallacy of "an appeal to ignorance." They are saying that since entrepreneurs and inventors can neither prove the ultimate safety of what they create nor disprove the "precautionary principle," then that means the "precautionary principle" is valid and must trump all opposition.
But lack of evidence for something is not evidence for that something!
To demand that someone prove a negative inverts logic and rationality. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. In this case, that means those proclaiming the superiority of the "precautionary principle" must prove their case. What is incumbent on the productive people of the world is that they examine their products as best they can given the level of current knowledge and be confident that the risks are minimal when compared to the benefits.
This brings us to the second point mentioned earlier: the demand for omniscience.
We cannot foresee all possible consequences of every action we take. Up to a point, of course, we are responsible for damages resulting from ignorance or negligence. That's what a product guarantee is all about. A manufacturer has confidence that a product will function as designed for a certain period and under certain conditions. He does not promise that the product will never fail; such a promise would be impossible to keep. A guarantee merely states that the manufacturer will replace or repair the product if it fails. (And there always will be a certain percentage of products that fail. Not only is no one omniscience, no one and nothing is perfect in all cases and for all time.)
But a manufacturer is not responsible for unforeseen consequences of people misusing products. An idiot who uses a loaded gun as a hammer deserves what he gets. (Though in today's litigious society, the crapshoot our legal system has become requires businesses to issue ludicrous warnings such as the iron maker who warned consumers not to iron a shirt while wearing it...)
To the extent that businesses are held liable for failure to be omniscient and perfect, to that extent they will be reluctant to innovate, improve, or introduce new products. Why endure all the expenses and financial risks of such goods and services if you can be bankrupted via lawsuits or put out of business when the government bans your product?
Old standards, outdated technology, and less safe products will be enshrined in a system ossified by Sate mandates, prohibitions, and "standards." (See building codes as a prime example of this danger.)
Life itself could not exist without risk. Getting out of bed entails risk (the danger of dying from a heart attack doubles when you get up in the morning). You may choke on the food you eat. You may trip on the sidewalk. You may have your heart broken if you have a romantic relationship. You may be rejected if you apply for a new job. You may fail if you return to college.
Freedom itself involves risks (and far greater rewards). People may choose poorly. Others may violate your rights. Disorder may increase. The alternative, however, is much worse. Dictatorship, stultifying sameness, and increased poverty hardly hold promise of a preferable existence.
If you seek a better life, a happier life, a more fulfilling life, proclaim the superiority of your freedom and embrace the opportunities risk presents. Grasping for the chimera of zero risk is a fool's game.
Don't be a fool.
