The Right To Safety
(Hassan Mahmood)
There are many everyday products that consumers can buy that are potentially dangerous. However, life as we know it could probably not continue if we did not allow them to be available to consumers. An obvious example is cars. Thousands of people die every year in car accidents. Hence, cars are hazardous to life. But we live with them just the same because the benefit of having cars outweighs the cost.
Human productivity would be drastically reduced if we did not have cars. We would produce less, the risk of economic catastrophes and hunger would increase dramatically. The death toll for humans in a world with no cars would rapidly increase.
This means that we have to take into consideration the costs and benefits of allowing products that can harm us as consumers. Consumers should be allowed a greater say in what products they want to use, even if these products can be dangerous if not used properly. However, if governments prohibit consumers from making informed choices about risks and benefits then we are less well off because we have less practice in making informed choices. Allowing governments to disenfranchise us as consumers will prevent us from acting as responsible and sensible individuals. It will lead to a society where bureaucrats choose instead of consumers.
Consumer safety does not mean that the consumer is being removed from a product that can be harmful, but that, as a responsible adult, he can hold producers liable for the harm their product has caused.
Resumos Relacionados
- Online Shopping ? The Preferred Way To Shop
- Health Care Choices: Private Contracts As Instruments Of Health Reform
- Health Care Choices: Private Contracts As Instruments Of Health Reform
- Advertising And Promotion
- Fear Of Persuasion: A New Perspective On Advertising And Regulation
|
|
