Dakota Beacon

In the last seventy years regulating risks to health and safety dominated public policy debates. Lamentably, pursuit of improving our lives generally entails risks.

            Coal mining produced 47 fatalities in 2006 and 27 fatalities in 2007.

            Fatalities attributed to oil and gas extraction totaled 404 between 2003 and 2007.

            Between 1970 and 2010 in the US 35 fatalities were caused by wind turbines according to the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum.

            Astonishingly, nuclear energy killed no one during the same period.

            Farming, transportation, manufacturing, military service and more generate risks in pursuit of improving our lives.

Americans maintain an illusion that our government strives for a risk-free environment through the efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRA), Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Federal Trade Commission’s Consumer Protection Agency (FTC-CPA) and a myriad of other agencies. Still, we’re not risk-free. For all the government’s efforts we’re never safe enough. Death happens.

Contrary to the sentiment of moral do-gooders, living in a technologically advanced country that uses industrial chemicals, nuclear energy and a lot of carbon fuels is healthier than living in a poor, non-industrialized country that uses little technology, few chemicals and a minimum of carbon fuels.

People usually choose their fears as a way of defending their lifestyle. Some people accept technological risks when approved by experts. Other people view technological risks as opportunities for progress. Still others view the risks from technological advances as another way for capitalists to climb on the backs of others while ignoring harm to the environment.

If health and safety pose concerns, then an issue for regulation becomes whether the costs outweigh the gains. However, those who emphasize precaution will reject cost considerations as unimportant.

There is no moral norm that says health and safety must be the only value or even the dominant value. Emphasizing one value above all others requires a totalitarian to choose the important values, decide how to rank order them and then enforce the ranking. How much marginal gain in health and safety is worth the loss of freedom, justice and the pursuit of excellence? At least one American patriot answered this question for himself. “Give me Liberty or give me death!”

How atrocious to mislead the American public into believing they can live a risk-free life if only the public would leave decisions to those who know best -- liberal politicians and public union bureaucrats. If only liberals were in charge, everything would be beautiful, pristine. Are there really risk-free ways to eat, risk-free ways to live, risk-free ways to produce food and energy? It’s easy to promise zero risk. It’s criminal knowing you can’t deliver. Too bad so many people believe the promise.

Liberal activists who pursue a “safer society” by railing against technological progress engage in a form of soft economic terrorism. Alternatively, critics of a riskless society argue that government should not prohibit free choice by attempting to provide costly protections people don’t want.

Experts in many fields argue that zero risk in their area of expertise is totally unrealistic. Panic over such things as developing cancer from chlorinated water or from pesticides in food is so negligible as to be statistically insignificant. Consequently, the FDA and EPA overregulate and are excessively stringent when they attempt to reach zero risk. This typically reveals the usual suspects pushing their anti-capitalist, anti-technology and anti-industrial agendas.

A great example of the implausibility of zero risk involves national security. Over the decades military planners always emphasize to congress that to make America 100% safe would be totally unaffordable. Consequently, congress adopts options in which America is less than 100% secure. Congress does this by buying the security America can afford and assumes the risk for the shortfall.

Unfortunately, risks which cannot be prevented (earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes), happen. Sadly, those risks which can be prevented (multiple stimulus packages, overwhelming debt, printing money to pay for excessive debt), aren’t.

In the face of unqualified risk, one guy wisely pointed out, “None of us will get out of this world alive.” He’s got that right.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).