ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (12/31/85)
> Someone asked about cost-benefit studies of seat-belt legislation. > The 1976 annual report of the US Dept. of Transportation contains > findings which indicate that $37.50 would be saved for every $1.00 > invested in the enactment and enforcement of such legislation. Carnes goes on at length and invites us to draw the conclusion that because seat-belt legislation saves more money than it costs, it is therefore a good idea. The hidden premise here is that this is a plausible method of deciding what laws to enact: if forcing people to do something saves more money than it costs, do it. Remember, we're talking about tax money here -- money taken from people by force. In other words, Carnes believes it is acceptable to take money by force from some people as long as it saves at least as much money for other people. However, he doesn't believe this in all cases -- if he did, he would mail me a check for however much money he felt it appropriate to save me. I'll bet there are even some other cases in which Carnes would believe it is inappropriate for the government to take money from some to save more for others. So there is a whole set of principles underlying this assumption that are also going unstated. The interested reader may want to try to figure out what they are.