Exploitation and the Working Class

While surfing on the internet the other day, I decided to take a gander at a democratic socialism website in order to gain a greater understanding of how socialism would appeal to the common man. As I suspected, the message was geared toward an audience that has a victim mentality. It was truly shocking to realize the level of blame they place on the wealthy minority for the miseries they experience in their own lives. It was fascinating to take a peek into their view of the world. They believe “the poverty and misery, the oppression and exploitation that marks our society is the result of control of the world’s wealth and productive resources by a tiny class that exploits the vast majority of society.” Ayn Rand counters this socialist argument so much more eloquently than I ever could, so I will just let you read what she has to say about men gaining wealth by “exploiting” lesser men:

But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What
strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the
product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a
motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the
intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the
incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made--before
it can be looted or mooched--made by the effort of every honest man, each to the
extent of his ability.http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826

Is it possible in a society as free as ours, with as many opportunities as we have, for an employer to “exploit” his workers? I have a hard time believing that there are many individuals in our society that would even take a job unless they believed that it was in their best interest, and they had something they would gain from that employment. One of the many benefits of living in a society as mobile as ours, is the fact that employers lack the ability to “exploit” their workers, because as soon as an employee felt that their employment was no longer mutually beneficial, they would quickly move on to greener pastures.

Rock the Vote! Or... Maybe don't. Please?

Since at least high school, if not earlier, I can recall having the importance of my right to vote slammed into my impressionable skull.  Before we are even of age to vote, we are taught that we absolutely must.  This election, according to civicyouth.org, the youth voting block is the fastest growing age segment, and also represents the greatest proportion of minority voters.  On the surface, I suppose this is a great feel good story.  Young members of our society are ostensibly taking an interest in how their country is run and what they can do to impact it.  Unfortunately, this may not be quite as exciting as some think.

While it is indeed true that young voters are turning out in record numbers, are we in fact educated enough to do so?  While a huge proportion of young voters cite the economy as a major issue that impacts their voting preferences, these same voters often support socializing medicine, hiking taxes on the wealthy, and bailing out ailing financial institutions at any cost.  Perhaps it would be best if all of us in the 18-28 voting bracket sat down and read a little about the various issues, economics especially.  We could start with, oh... the Constitution perhaps.  While every person is entitled to his or her own opinion, and certainly to vote as he or she sees fit, perhaps we ought not to rush to the polls without first taking some time to really learn about the principles on which our country was founded so that we might one day return to them.

No on 48

I always wait till the last min to write these things, but its always in these last crucial hours that the best things come to me. This morning when I woke up I was surprised to find a flyer on my door encouraging me to vote yes on amendment 48. Needless to say I was all but appalled when I began reading. Upon completion I was disgusted. As a woman I believe that my right to choose what I do with my body should be decided by me, not Colorado voters. As an economist I see only negative ramifications that will come from the passing of this amendment.
The arguments that can be made from the economic perspective may seem hash, but they are ones that can be made. To touch on what we are discussing in class. I believe that this is an unjustifiable use of police power on the part of the government. It is a clear violation of the rights of women to do with their body as they please. The opposition wants us to believe that upon conception the fetus is considered to have rights. But, lets say you plant seeds in your garden, If they are trampled does that mean some one has crushed your flowers? The same idea can be seen in this situation, yes the seeds of life have been planed in the womb of a women, but with there destruction you are not technically destroying life. The only rights that are being infringed on are that of the women. She chose to engage in an act that led to her situation, and it is her choice to handle it in a way in which she sees fit. A big part of economics is efficiency. With the legalization if abortion, women who decide to not have children has a safe and clean place to go to do what needs to be done. If it is outlawed, this will not stop women from having abortions, they will turn to other methods, they can be more detrimental then the practices all ready in place. Also in tune with efficiency there is a certain point to when resources can not sustain beyond a certain point, so abortions are a measure that in since help ease the strain on already scarce resources. American culture is one of the few that does not restrict the limits on the number of children per family. The Inuit (Eskimos) practice infanticide, for the greater good of the whole group. They understand the hash reality of the scarcity of their resources. Many other nations admire American culture for its free thinking people, why then would be limit the rights of our citizens to think for themselves. At then end of the day it is baby pictures that people fawn over when reminiscing, not shots of globs of cells and fetuses.
I am personally against abortion, but again I feel it is every woman’s choice to make her own decision.

Emissions Policy

Why are 25-year (and older) automobiles exempt from emissions programs, while newer vehicles are still held “emissions accountable?” All vehicles produce emissions, whether they are new, old, small or big. However, new vehicles that have new technology are continuously improved making them run more efficient, while producing less carbon dioxide and sulfur. Older models generally produce more, and yet they are not held accountable, so why does the state government system disregard these vehicles? One possibility is that new automobiles are held at a level of “higher accountability” by the state governments, because there are more of them on the road? It could also be said that environmental groups are putting more pressure upon the automotive manufactures to improve upon the emissions control? Rumors circulate that state government has little control over there emissions control program. Many emissions control facilities have become outdated or are non-functioning. Some control stations have been caught taking bribes to make their customers vehicles pass. Today we all face a cost-benefit decision that suggests that we can buy new automobiles that are economically beneficent and are constantly being held accountable, or we can choose to keep our older vehicles that produce vastly larger amounts or carbon and sulfur. In today’s society a “green outlook” comes with a choice, whether to serve the environment or our own needs.

Liberalism

As we have dicussed throughout the entire semester, most of us agree that a liberal economy is the best way to go. With all of the interventions that the government makes it drives our economy down and is one of the main reasons that we are in such an economic turmoil right now. Why, if this is so obvious of an answer to most of us in class is it so hard for the politicians and the high ranking government officials to figure out. They should have people that are more educated than us, as undergraduate students. Why don't they see the same things we do. Could it be that we are actually wrong, or is it that with all of the interventions that have already been made that it is already too late to change what we have? Whatever the answers we need to fix this mess we have made and need to have the right people in place to be able to do the things that this country so desperately needs.

Should Government Intervene in the Automobile Industry for the Sake of Global Warming?

The automobile industry encompasses two fundamental issues at the forefront of the American society today—global warming and dependence on oil. The automobile industry uses vast amounts of oil and, thus, contributes to global warming through excessive carbon emissions. The question then arises, what should be done? Automobiles create externalities that cause environmental harm; should the government step in and regulate the industry? Or should the market be relied upon to correct for the environmental damages inflicted by cars? In his essay “How a Free Society Could Save Global Warming,” Gene Callahan advocates that corrections for global arming are more likely to result through free-market interactions, rather than government intervention. An argument against this point is whether or not the market will be able to adjust quickly enough. Environmental problems take some time to recognize and address (partially why global warming is just now becoming a public issue though it has been occurring for some time). Will the market be able to reflect the additional costs of environmental damage in a timely manner so that the problems can actually be halted and corrected?
On the other hand, if government does regulate the industry, will it be able to do so in a manner that will correct for global warming? Government intervention also takes time, and there is no guarantee that government will “get it right.” If government decides to regulate the amount of emissions cars are allowed to produce, will they be able to establish the “correct” amount? (What would this amount be? And, how would they determine it?) Government, having less-complete information about the auto industry because they are outside of it, it seems, would be less likely to set the “efficient” amount of emissions. If they allow too much carbon emissions, global warming may not be corrected, and if they allow too few, that could negatively impact the industry and consumers. However, it could still be argued that any decrease in emission is better than no decrease or an increase.
Besides regulating emissions, should government require auto producers to make more fuel-efficient vehicles or alternative-fuel vehicles to decrease oil consumption and the effects of global warming? In Chapter 13, “Conservation, Ecology, and Growth,” of For a New Liberty, Murray Rothbard argues that technological improvement will lead to a higher standard of living. Based upon his reasoning, it could be concluded that the technology of the automobile industry will improve to the point where vehicles will be more fuel-efficient or utilize alternative fuels because this would make people better-off (fuel would likely be less expensive and air pollution would decrease). The question again arises of whether or not these changes will take place through the market in a timely enough manner to preserves the environment, or whether government regulation is warranted and would be effective. Rising oil prices would increase the incentives for auto producers to develop alternative fuels and fuel-efficient vehicles, but if oil prices decline, these incentives are reduced. The development of new technology might then be delayed; meanwhile, cars continue to pollute the air and contribute to global warming. Government intervention (through regulation, or subsidies) could recreate incentives to continue the development of such technologies. Thus, the question remains, should government intervene in the automobile industry to correct for environmental damages, or should it be left to free-market interactions?

Bring on the gas guzzler!

With the economy doing so bad, we have to look at the good things that also come with it. Lower gas prices! I was driving on union down towards Platte today and I saw gas prices as low as $2.27 that's like a dollar cheaper than 6 months ago. I remembered when it cost me like over $30 to fill up my tank and now it's like $10 less so I'm happy. And since we live in a state where almost every other car is an SUV or Truck or some other kind or gas guzzler, I'm sure they are all ecstatic too. I know this helps me out alot especially since I work in the restaurant industry and not many people are willing to go out these days. And if you don't own one of these guzzlers, I'm sure you can find one cheap now seeing how the auto industry is taking a big hit like most other industries

So I'm debating whether I should fill up my tank now or wait and see if it can get any lower...

Buy Nine Fingers, Get the Tenth Free

Do you own your body?

I think the vast majority of people, at least in America, would answer yes. In fact, conceptually it’s difficult to answer in any other manner. Even the question must be phrased with the term “your body” in order to properly be understood. And yet I’m not entirely convinced our bodies are truly our own.

George Carlin once asked “Why should it be illegal to sell something, that it‘s perfectly legal to give away?” Carlin was talking about prostitution, but I think the quote remains just as valid in reference to the organs of our bodies. And the only answer I can think of, is because we don’t own the organs, and the true owner has set the rules.

The fact that you can’t legally buy transplant organs in America has created a chronic shortage of them. At the moment, unless you can get someone to donate to you directly, the method of acquiring one involves, essentially, signing up to wait in line for who knows how many years until your number is called. The entire process eerily resembles the DMV, except with hospital beds instead of 6 inch high plastic chairs.

Why such a long wait? Because the value of organs is some number greater then zero, but for the moment zero is all people are allowed to receive in exchange for those organs. Thus the system relies solely on the altruism of donors, not just in giving up something of value, but in undertaking the risk of doing so (even minor surgery, which this is not, always carries a risk, and of course there’s the long term risk of only having, say, one kidney instead of two).

If money were to be allowed into the equation, it stands to reason that many more people might be convinced that parting with an organ that could help the sick is a reasonable idea.

Among the many objections to this policy is the suggestion that allowing monetary payments for organs would restrict transplants only to the rich. This is far from the truth though. Donations haven’t been taken out of the equation, they’re just no longer the only option. Charity is still at play, just as it is in every other market in the world. And in fact, it’s conceivable that donations could increase after a fashion, because now those who either couldn’t donate organs, or were unwilling to take on the risk of doing so, may simply donate money that can be used to buy an organ from another party.

Others argue that allowing a market in organs would encourage criminals to murder fellow citizens in order to harvest and sell their organs. The fact of the matter is though, since organs are not a zero value item, this could already be occurring under the radar. In fact since the market has been restricted and a shortage created, the value of organs currently would be abnormally high. Legalizing a market here would likely reduce crime in this area by lowering the expected price, and thus reducing the incentive for criminals.

The other common argument against organ selling is that the introduction of money into the process of getting organs for sick people somehow makes the entire activity immoral and disgusting. And perhaps it does. I’ll be the first to admit, for one reason or another, my stomach seems to turn a little bit at the idea, and I can‘t keep my imagination from conjuring images of Dr. Frankenstein and his monster. But there’s two key things to remember here. First off, it’s none of our business. I’m sure there’s quite a few things we all find disgusting that we allow to continue simply because it doesn’t involve us (and I‘d like to nominate any and everything Madonna does as a case study in this). And second, no matter how repulsive you find the idea of selling organs it’s far more disgusting to think of all the people suffering and dying, waiting for transplants that they can’t get because the market has been restricted.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, if we don’t own the organs of our bodies can we truly be said to own the bodies themselves? I encourage you to think carefully about this, because the concept of self ownership is the most crucial element to property rights. As a general rule we tend to view property from a Lockian perspective, which says because we own our bodies the unowned elements which we mix the labor of that same body with become ours. However, if we don’t fully own those bodies the entire idea falls apart. And then, can we truly own anything at all?

-Jaeson Madison

The Mighty Dollar

If you would have told me four years ago, that economics, would have
got this interesting I wouldn’t have believed you. Yesterday the
American congress rejected a 700 billion dollar deal to bail out
failing banks. I honestly feel like the longer they wait to pass it,
the less effective it is going to be. They are going to reach a point
where is probably just better to let the market self-correct, cause
that’s what markets do. In the bigger picture, the problem is what it
is and something needs to be done. Yet the cause of this problem
should also be evaluated so it does not happen again. I feel like the
government set themselves up for failure years ago, when they decided
that they needed to force banks to give loans to individuals who other
wise could not afford to have houses cause get them. Not the housing
market is in shambles, and foreclose is an all time high. Banks where
forced to loan out money that they where not going to get back, and
now look the system at is core is falling apart. Some will arguer that
its creed and corruption at the center of the issues, granted I do
believe it has its place, I don’t believe it is the final answer to
the problem as to why the banks fail. Now congress is trying to pass a
bill to rectify the situation, but this bill goes against the very
fabric that is our American constitution. It delegates power to the
legislated and judicial that are in no way implied by our nations
highest written law. The very fundamental principles on which this
country was built are being ignored and all in name of the all mighty
dollar.

Danielle Scott

An Unrealistic Utopia

In Chapter 3 of his book Liberalism In the Classical Tradition, Ludwig von Mises writes, “The starting point of liberal thought is the recognition of the value and importance of human cooperation, and the whole policy and program of liberalism is designed to serve the purpose of maintaining the existing state of mutual cooperation among the members of the human race and of extending it still further. The ultimate ideal envisioned by liberalism is the perfect cooperation of all mankind, taking place peacefully and without friction.” This statement paints an utopist picture of the world—all people getting along peacefully. Von Mises maintains that if this were the case, the means of production would freely move from areas less favorable suited for production to those that are more favorable suited. This goes beyond specialization and comparative advantage. This free movement of the means of production would allow humanity to be more productive than ever.

While Von Mises makes a valid point that if the means of production were employed in the environment best suited for production humanity would be more productive, this is highly unrealistic. To envision that all of humanity will be able to lay aside their differences and engage in capitalism together is to create an impracticable and out of reach utopia. Von Mises paints a nice picture of a highly productive and peaceful society, which could even be viewed as the solution to poverty, but it is virtually impossible to obtain. People are not just going to suddenly decide to forget all conflict and cooperate. Even if this did occur and the world reached its productive capacity based on the division of labor and free movement of the means of production, this might have unintended consequences. How much more production can the earth sustain? This becomes an especially prevalent issue in today’s society, with all the concerns about global warming a climate change. If increased production impacts the environment (in the form of global warming/climate change, or other ways), government would then have to intervene to establish policies to protect the environment. This intervention would interrupt the liberal, capitalist society. Because this liberal, capitalist picture of society is littered with questions and “what-ifs”, the question must be asked “is it actually attainable?” Likely, it is not, and is instead an unrealistic utopia.

Whitney Lund

An Expose of the National Park Service

From Bill Bryson's great book, A Walk in the Woods:

"The National Park Service actually has something of a tradition of making things extinct. Bryce Canyon National Park is perhaps the most interesting -- certainly the most striking -- example. It was founded in 1923 and in less than half a century under the Park Service's stewardship lost seven species of mammal... Quite an achievement when you consider that these animals had survived in Bryce Canyon for tens of millions of years before the Park Service took an interest in them. Altogether, forty-two species of mammal have disappeared from America's national parks this century.

"...The Park Service in 1957 decided to 'reclaim' Abrams Creek, a tributary of the Little Tennessee River, for rainbow trout, even though rainbow trout had never been native to Abrams Creek. To that end, biologists dumped several drums of a poison called rotenone into fifteen miles of creek. Within hours, tens of thousands of dead fish were floating on the surface like autumn leaves. Among the thirty-one species of Abrams Creek fish that were wiped out was one called the smoky madtom, which scientists had never seen before. Thus, Park Service biologists managed the wonderfully unusual accomplishment of discovering and eradication in the same instant a new species of fish.

"Today the National Park Service employs a more casual approach to endangering wildlife: neglect. It spends almost nothing -- less than 3 percent of its budget -- on research of any type...

"...consider the grassy balds -- treeless, meadowy expanses of mountaintop, up to 250 acres in extent, which are quite unique to the southern Appalachians. No one knows why the balds are there, or how long they have existed, or why they appear on some mountains and not others. Some believe they are natural features, perhaps relics of lightning fires, and some believe that they are man-made, burned or cleared to provide land for summer grazing. What is certain is that they are central to the character of the Smokies... For unknown numbers of years they were used first by Indians and then by European settlers for grazing summer livestock, but now, with graziers banished and the Park Service doing nothing, woody species are steadily reclaiming the mountaintops. Within twenty years, there may be no balds left in the Smokies. Ninety plant species have disappeared from the balds since the park was opened in the 1930s. At least twenty-five more are expected to go in the next few years.

"In constant dollars, the Park Service budget today is $200 million a year less than it was a decade ago. In consequence, even as visitor numbers have soared -- from 79 million in 1960 to almost 270 million today -- campsites and interpretation centers have been shut, warden numbers slashed, and essential maintenance deferred to a positively ludicrous degree. By 1997, the repair backlog for the national parks had reached $6 billion. All quite scandalous. But consider this. In 1991 as its trees were dying, its building crumbling, its visitors being turned away from campgrounds it could not afford to keep open, and its employees being laid off in record numbers, the National Park Service threw a seventy-fifth anniversary party for itself in Vail, Colorado. It spent $500,000 on the event. That may not be quite as moronically negligent as tipping hundreds of gallons of poison into a wilderness stream, but it is certainly in the right spirit."


Besides being interesting, I think this is a good illustration of the gross inefficiencies of government ownership. I'm sure Rothbard would enjoy reading that chapter.

Voter Suppression: Scare tactics?

Currently, both parties McCain and Obama, have been knee deep accusing the other of voter fraud according to some sources like CSPAN and other networks like Fox News. Voter supression is in the same category apparently with Voter Fraud. Voter fraud defined by wikipedia is "a form of electoral fraud and refers to the use of governmental power, political campaign strategy, and private resources aimed at suppressing (i.e. reducing) the total vote of opposition candidacies instead of attempting to change likely voting behavior by changing the opinions of potential voters. This method is particularly effective if a significant amount of voters are intimidated individually because the voter might not consider his or her single vote important".

Even though voter supression may be considered political hoopla, voter fraud sounds familiar to our last election between Bush and Kerry. From a New York Times Ad online dated August 16th 2004, the author of this article, Bob Herb, stated that in our past election Florida was under criminal investigation of the organization of Orlando League of Voters by state officials. The only reason that I could find for this investigation during the 2004 elections was that the Orlando League of Voters must have commited a crime to convince black voters for whom they should vote for. The goal of this association which was made up of older, black volunteers, was to encourage black voters to vote by transporting voters to voting destination for those that do not have the capacity to do so ( ie. lacking income to support gas or other means of transportation). From these criminal investigations many of the blacks that were recieving assitance getting to the polls may have lost their vote because the Orlando League (that was under investigation)may have influenced their vote. The larger problem with this situation is that perhaps removing votes because of such associations helped a particular political candidate (Bush) in recieving less votes for John Kerry because blacks were thought to have voted for Kerry if their votes had counted.

Besides allegations of voter fraud during the last election of Bush and Kerry and the current election of democrat and Republican there is also speculation about the processes of voting that may also misrepresent a person's vote. Some have pointed out potential problems with the voting machines and perhaps even the people that count the votes ( even mail in ballots). The ES &S voting machines (made by John Waveright) was reported to have some issues with their touch screens. When an individual dragged their finger to their candidate it typically selected the first candidate on the list which was McCain. People in the news also had speculated about the accuracy or assurance that those that aided the voting process could intentionally or intentionally misrepresent one's vote.From all these stories of votes being misrepresented why the scare tactic(Florida in the last election?)?

More questions: Can anyone disenfranshise or suppress an individual's vote?

If a vote is considered to be part of capitalism that shouldn't voter fraud occur? Or should voting be simply considered democratic?

And is voter persuasion equal to some voters who believe that celebrity opinions are more important than their own as voter fraud?

In Defense of Quantitative Reasoning

The following is a direct quote from Friedrich von Hayek’s 1968 essay “Competition as A Discovery Procedure”:

“I should like to add a few words about the consequences of the disappointment in microeconomic theory caused by fallacious methodological criteria of scientism. The notion that we must formulate our theories so that they can be immediately applied to observable statistical or other measurable quantities seems to me to be a methodological error. It is a false epistemiological principle to adapt the theory to the available information, so that the observed variables appear directly in the theory.” (Hayek, 11-12).

It is indeed tempting to subscribe to Hayek’s opinion that to deserve a title of scientific theory, it must be formed independently and regardless of the facts and empirical data. Hayek makes a valid argument that at times data are tailored to fit the initial hypothesis and questionable, at best quasi-scientific results emerge.
To demand the opposite is admirable yet highly impractical. The entire reason why a hypothesis is formed in the first place is due to suspicion of a certain relationship existing between the observable variables. Such is the nature of analytics as a science itself: human minds perceive patterns and seek verification of their initial assumptions. It calls for a formulation of clear and unambiguous hypotheses. Once the null and the research hypotheses are defined, a scientist designs an experiment. At this stage of research, arguably the most important one, a number of independent variables is considered. An experiment can be designed to simply test the strength of a relationship between a single dependent and a single independent variable. If that is the case, a researcher might not be careful enough and might falsely conclude that the two variables will always act in a manner consistent with the outcomes of the experiment. “We might be able to notice certain regularities in the observed behavior of these variables. Often these regularities apply, but sometimes they do not. Yet using the means of macrotheory, we can never formulate the conditions under which they apply,” writes Hayek (12). I am afraid I disagree that we can literally never formulate those conditions. For if it were so, the field of macroeconomics would cease to exist. The few relationships that are firmly anchored in the minds of macroeconomists exist due to the strong empirical evidence that support those relationships in the first place. Every single one is supported by a verifiable model.
That brings me to another point. When observing a change of a dependent variable that is a function of an independent variable, a coefficient of determination between the two is of utmost importance. For if the “R squared” explains a minor portion of the dependant variable’s variation (like 20 percent), it surely calls for a more complete model. So, a model gets rebuilt and the research continues. As long as a model of a dependant variable captures a significant and sizable proportion of this variable’s variation, it does not deserve to be labeled methodologically flawed. Modern computing grants us power to split atoms with a precision of our forecasting and other econometric models. That was clearly not the case when Hayek wrote his original essay in 1968.
Hayek lived during the time when the Might and speed of modern computers would be a scientist’s wild dream. He lived in a scientific community severely constrained by the lack of any automated computational capabilities. Unable to perform any rigorous quantitative analyses, he chose to abandon all efforts to do so all together, labeling the attempts of all other economists to describe the world numerically as “fallacious methodological criteria of scientism.” Instead, he chose to practice economics in the form of political philosophy, a form that was prevalent for centuries, a form lacking quantitative rigor and precision but abundant with ideological implications.
Hayek claimed that the attempt to quantify the world around us is “a methodological error.” Such claim is severely biased and can be easily contested by one of the Forefathers of all Science, Isaac Newton himself. In his work “Rules for the Study of Natural Philosophy” Newton establishes clear provisions of the Scientific Method. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method must further include the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. That is the scholarly method a respectable scientific community follows, not rhetorical demagoguery regarding the political philosophy and the mere rhetoric of the government’s coercive powers.
Last but not least, this post is written by an author practicing a Science of Economics. This is the science concerned with an endless myriad of choices, tradeoffs, and opportunity costs. This is the science describing people’s behavior and their interactions with other individuals. This is the science aiming to accurately and precisely describe people’s welfare and fluctuations thereof. This is a Science and it deserves its quantitative rigor, and we, the growing generation of tomorrow’s scientists, will fight to preserve it.

Click-it or Ticket

I was driving down I-25 the other day and I saw one of those signs on the highway that said, "Click-it or Ticket". I started thinking about the implicatons of a law that requires drivers to wear a seatbelt. From a liberty perspective, a person should be able to do whatever he or she wants as long as it does not harm the person or property of another. Does not wearing a seatbelt pose any harm to another person or person's property? Perhpas you could get into a crash and you're body could go flying out of the car and and slam into another car. I guess in this senario, your body does cause damage to another person's property. Beyond this senario, I can not think of any cases in wear not wearing your seatbelt causes harm to another person or persons property.
I feel that wearing your seatbelt is a great idea. The addition of seatbelts in cars have saved many lives. We should all wear seatbelts while in our cars. However, I do not feel that the government should be able to fine its citizens for not wearing a seatbelt. An automobile is the private property of the person inside. The Only danger possed by a driver not wearing the seatbelt is directed toward the driver, and nobody else.
Rational people can make a value judgement as to whether or not they wear a seatbelt. If car manufactures were not required to put seatbelts in cars, we would still see them in cars, even if they cost extra as an option, because consumers would have a demand for the belts.
I feel that seatbelt laws are unnessary, and in the case of click-it or ticket, are a violation of our personal liberties.

An Unrealistic Utopia

In Chapter 3 of his book Liberalism In the Classical Tradition, Ludwig von Mises writes, “The starting point of liberal thought is the recognition of the value and importance of human cooperation, and the whole policy and program of liberalism is designed to serve the purpose of maintaining the existing state of mutual cooperation among the members of the human race and of extending it still further. The ultimate ideal envisioned by liberalism is the perfect cooperation of all mankind, taking place peacefully and without friction.” This statement paints an utopist picture of the world—all people getting along peacefully. Von Mises maintains that if this were the case, the means of production would freely move from areas less favorable suited for production to those that are more favorable suited. This goes beyond specialization and comparative advantage. This free movement of the means of production would allow humanity to be more productive than ever.

While Von Mises makes a valid point that if the means of production were employed in the environment best suited for production humanity would be more productive, this is highly unrealistic. To envision that all of humanity will be able to lay aside their differences and engage in capitalism together is to create an impracticable and out of reach utopia. Von Mises paints a nice picture of a highly productive and peaceful society, which could even be viewed as the solution to poverty, but it is virtually impossible to obtain. People are not just going to suddenly decide to forget all conflict and cooperate. Even if this did occur and the world reached its productive capacity based on the division of labor and free movement of the means of production, this might have unintended consequences. How much more production can the earth sustain? This becomes an especially prevalent issue in today’s society, with all the concerns about global warming a climate change. If increased production impacts the environment (in the form of global warming/climate change, or other ways), government would then have to intervene to establish policies to protect the environment. This intervention would interrupt the liberal, capitalist society. Because this liberal, capitalist picture of society is littered with questions and “what-ifs”, the question must be asked “is it actually attainable?” Likely, it is not, and is instead an unrealistic utopia.