Apparently, you didn't get it
Milton Friedman Puts A Young (and skinny) Michael Moore In His Place
- Thread starter thesniper
- Start date
Apparently, you didn't get it
Actually everyday you put a price on someone elses life. For example, when you make the choice to drive to work you know there is a chance you might hit a person who chooses to cross the street with no signal or crosswalk. By making the conscious decision to drive you are saying that the benefit of driving outweighs the risk of killing someone--you are putting a small marginal price on another persons life. When you bought an Ipod off a production which directly resulted in tens of suicides you are putting a price on someone elses life.
If that persons life was priceless, as you seem to imply, then the moral cost of the ipod would be infinite and unaffordable to any person at any time in the history/future of the planet.
Again, you seem to stray away from the question. If the part cost 2,000,000 would you advise Ford to recall every car? If the answer is no, then you are agreeing with Milton. If the answer is yes, then nothing would ever got done in your economy due to the infinite cost that every product would command. If life is priceless, than marginal cost is non-existent and everything would be infinite dollars.
I think we both agree that Ford had the duty to inform all buyers that they had an increased risk of dying by buying the Pinto. That i agree with, what we appear to disagree on is Milton's argument against the kid's wording.
Free Market says I don't have to read your disguised Keynsian b.s. All these losers better buy a 2nd home near the Federal Court house so they can wait for their government branch decision to bail them out of mis-placed trust. Free Market can't bail somebody out of mis-placed trust. They lost and now should find a job.
The boy kicked Friedman's ass in that discussion and out classed the old scholar too. I wonder what the young man is doing today. My bet is he is a successful man.
Friedman's is just being an argumentative asshole. The actual argument he is making has little to do with the exact situation the young man is making and Mr Friedman knows this. Ford was guilty and I don't remember for sure but I think the courts verified that.
===============
Those are excellant risk remarks
If its not practical to get the lettuce pickers to wash after every head of lettuce... maybe we can talk consumers into washing lettuce.
Its something like personal responsibility.
A little lite reading:
http://www.wfu.edu/~palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/1999/Leggett-pinto.html
"In conclusion, all of the arguments against Judge Posner's negligence-efficiency argument center around valuing human life. Is it possible to set a price for all things, especially a human life? Is it ethically correct to attempt to do such a thing? Should a company be allowed to use this standard to determine whether to "upgrade" an automobile. The answer to all of these questions is yes. The use of the risk/benefit analysis maximizes overall economic value and general welfare. In fact, these choices are subconsciously made by individuals, companies and governmental agencies on an everyday basis. Judge Posner argues this standard was used long before Judge Learned Hand first expressed it in algebraic terms in Carroll Towing. While criticizing the numbers or values used by the Ford Motor Company in the risk/benefit analysis may be valid, the use of the risk/benefit analysis itself cannot be questioned."
We used to debate this stuff in torts class.
Its called the slippery slope.
My tort professor who was involved in one of CA most liberal tort cases. Was arguing for all sort of liberal ideas. And half the class was with her... until.... someone got hit in the face at a baseball game and it made the news. She argued that there should be nets protecting the entire crowd at at baseball games... not just behind home plate.
This was when even the liberal guys jumped ship. As, one stated if you are not able to get out of the way or unwilling to pay attention don't ruin it for the guy next to you... just don't sit there.
....
George Will once talked about this slippery slope and asked... if you wish to be so caring about road safety why don't you outlaw left turns. Those are the turns involved in most of the serious accidents.
In short... we have liberty and commerce clashing with bigger more interventionist govt and public health concerns.
And - the one really important point... which almost eclipses the debate...
Information...
If the care came with full information then the govt need not be involved. (as long has the buyer had insurance.)
Its called the slippery slope.
My tort professor who was involved in one of CA most liberal tort cases. Was arguing for all sort of liberal ideas. And half the class was with her... until.... someone got hit in the face at a baseball game and it made the news. She argued that there should be nets protecting the entire crowd at at baseball games... not just behind home plate.
This was when even the liberal guys jumped ship. As, one stated if you are not able to get out of the way or unwilling to pay attention don't ruin it for the guy next to you... just don't sit there.
....
George Will once talked about this slippery slope and asked... if you wish to be so caring about road safety why don't you outlaw left turns. Those are the turns involved in most of the serious accidents.
In short... we have liberty and commerce clashing with bigger more interventionist govt and public health concerns.
And - the one really important point... which almost eclipses the debate...
Information...
If the care came with full information then the govt need not be involved. (as long has the buyer had insurance.)
excellent article... tort law very clearly explained. Biog was right to quote that passage... it looks to me you are not picking up Friedmans point.
The boy was doing cost benefit calculus whether he acknowledged it or not. So the boy could not have "won" the debate. The boy is just valuing human life at a different number. To have won the debate the boy would have had to argue and win something to the effect human life can not be valued... period. He would then have been led down a path with him admitting people should not be allowed to drive.
I re quote below... from your link... it is pretty much what Friedman was saying. Which makes sense because I am sure Judge Posner and Friedman knew each other.
"6. Conclusion
In conclusion, all of the arguments against Judge Posner's negligence-efficiency argument center around valuing human life. Is it possible to set a price for all things, especially a human life? Is it ethically correct to attempt to do such a thing? Should a company be allowed to use this standard to determine whether to "upgrade" an automobile. The answer to all of these questions is yes. The use of the risk/benefit analysis maximizes overall economic value and general welfare. In fact, these choices are subconsciously made by individuals, companies and governmental agencies on an everyday basis. Judge Posner argues this standard was used long before Judge Learned Hand first expressed it in algebraic terms in Carroll Towing. While criticizing the numbers or values used by the Ford Motor Company in the risk/benefit analysis may be valid, the use of the risk/benefit analysis itself cannot be questioned. "
However, even Friedman may have been wrong if he did not have a component for massive jury awards.