And am I supposed to pay for your idea of what is “safe”? Even if I am willing to accept a higher level of risk / danger than you?
If safety fanatics are allowed to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, that can also kill people. Already safety crusades are cracking down on the “pollution” of waterways involving traces of chemicals more minute than those found in tap water, sodas, beer, or even Perrier or Evian water. How much standard of living – which includes medical care – are we prepared to sacrifice in order to eliminate ever more remote dangers?
Even to ask such a question requires accepting the reality of economic constraints – and the trade-offs this implies. But those for whom indignation has become a way of life reject economics as readily as they reject history, geography, or anything else which implies that they cannot “have it all.”
Prof. Thomas Sowell (Is Reality Optional?)
Progressives believe that all bad consequences must be mitigated and the costs must be socialized – we all pay for the few. Now, those areas in which bad decisions can made must now be disallowed. Choices must be eliminated – and our Elites (so called) in Society are deciding, more and more, what is to be allowed and what isn’t.
What Sowell alludes to is the old 80/20 Rule – 80% of the stuff to be done costs takes 20% spending; the last 20% is increasingly more expensive taking up to 80% of the overall cost. And that cost continues to rise in order to reduce the risk to as close to nullity as possible.
(H/T: Cafe Hayek)