3/13/2013 Free choice vs consumer protection

This coming Wednesday at the Ideas Cafe,  we will be discussing free choice versus consumer protection.

In an increasingly complicated world, it is difficult for us to understand everything we are involved in.  Whether it be cars, baby products, prescription drugs or food, it is impossible for us to be vigilant on quality of these goods and services without some standard and expertise from government or industry organizations.

Labeling laws on foods gives us nutritional information, air bags and seat belts improve our chances of surviving accidents,  these are all improvements from how things were years ago. 

All these practices came at a cost and different degrees of objections were raised when they were first brought in as mandatory standards.

How far should we go with this?

It is generally accepted that vaccines go a long way in preventing the spread of disease and its benefit vastly overwhelm the small amount of risk that it poses.  Why are we not mandating compulsory use of vaccines, not even for health workers?

Tobacco have been shown to be harmful, why is it still free choice for its use?

But of course we have to be free. 

While most people will accept helmet requirement for cycling and motorcycling, it would seem too much infringement on our freedom to forbid us from riding motorcycles just because the mortality and injury rates are higher than riding in cars.

We do not insists on people taking airplanes instead of driving across the country even when airplane travel have been shown statistically to be much safer than driving on a per mile basis.

What about the consumption of sugar, fats, salt, and other possibly unhealthy but tasty foods?

Is it enough just to show in labels that a particular food item contains unhealthy levels of trans fats or should the food be banned or taxed heavily?

Some say that individuals should be able to make their free choice for things that impact only on their own lives and no one else's.

But we live in an interconnected society. 

Can parents make personal choices without concern for their children's welfare if something happens to the parents?

Do we not all have ongoing commitments and obligations to fill that we are completely free to do whatever we want?

Then there are issues such as vaccination against infectious disease where society depends on a high participation rate for the disease not to spread.  While any one individual can opt out of the vaccination,  their well being is dependent on the majority of the rest of society to keep the disease from becoming an epidemic.  So it is not only their health but the society's health that is hanging in the balance of their "free" decisions.

What individual freedoms should be curtailed?