New Frontiers

Today Econo-Girl saw for the first time in her life: chocolate covered
POTATO CHIPS! UGH! Doesn't that make you want to HEAVE? The girl offering
them was so nice, so Econo-Girl feigned an allergy to grease.

This experience raises the last topic of the efficiency of the marketplace.
There is really a demand for such morsels as chocolate covered potato chips.
Just as there is a demand for heroin. Should we intervene and save people
from themselves? Should little rules make us cozy in our superiority?

People decry helmet laws. A friend once said, "I don't want to be told to
wear a helmet. I'll wear one. It just should be my choice." And about the
non-choice of taxpayers who pay to scrape you off of the pavement?

Similarly, these adventurers who get trapped by nature and need to get
rescued by (of course) the government are in need of government service.
ohoh - boss nearby


Saur♥Kraut said...

Yep, you're right. Where do you draw the line? Your points are excellent. That's why I agree with helmet and seatbelt laws. But there are times that government gets TOO involved. In Florida we have mandatory auto insurance, which cripples many poor families and delights our insurance companies. I understand the reasoning behind it, but it effectively encourages monopolistic behavior.

The Lazy Iguana said...

The market is about as efficient as a H2 going 90 mph.

But it is the only economy we have.

And I agree about the chocolate covered potato chip. There should be a STEEP TAX on foods like that. That way, when someone who eats that stuff has a heart attack, emergency rooms could bill the tax fund.

I look at the lack of helmet laws as chlorine for the gene pool.

jevanking™ said...

Evidentally there is.

I miss reading your blog, but I'll be around soon enough. I'm making the rounds telling everyone I'm still here.

I'll catch up with everything on your blog as soon as I am settled in Cali...

lewis_medlock said...

saurkraut........i consider your comments on car insurance and the poor to be irresponsible.
Driving is inherently risky..no way around it...motor vehicle crashes occur (i refuse to use the word 'accident'). Those in our society choosing to incur the risks of driving should assume all of the responsibilities of driving...a part of that risk is that if you are the causation of a crash , then you are responsible for the other's injuries and damages. Those wishing to not partake in driving can choose another mode of transportation...the rest of the world is not so car dependent.
Walking, bicycling, city buses, ride sharing,taxis.........all are alternatives to car ownership and the responsibilities that go along with it.
As a social libertarian, I do not like intrusion into my life anymore than the next guy....but I am not an anarchist, so I agree that laws that are basically fair and for the common good are OK.
If I ran you over, hospitalized you for a week or two, put your ride in the scrap heap, and made it impossible for you to work for two or three months and I basically said 'not my problem', what would your attitude be then?
The only thing that would be 'crippled' would be you, your health and your financial well being.
I also consider your statement regarding the the concept that mandatory insurance laws delight insurance companies and that such laws are 'monopolistic' to be wrought with fallacy.
No one group of institutions pushes harder AGAINST mandatory insurance laws than INSURERS. Why? Because the kind of folks who chose insurance because ITS THE RIGHT THING TO DO tend to be better risks than folks who chose to be insured BECAUSE THE MAN SAYS I GOTTA.
Insurance companies are in it to make money.......hard to do that when they have to insure folks who are going to cost them money.