For Whose Sake?

The Titan submersible story continues to reverberate across both mainstream and social media, with the buzz shifting to questions about safety. As in, why were these five people allowed to descend in a vessel that, by some accounts at least, wasn't up to some (nebulous) greater standard of safety.

Questions morph into demands, as in:

After Titan loss, calls for regulation on deep sea tourism.

and

Titanic sub: How is submersible tourism regulated and what’s next for industry?

I will set aside, for the purposes of today's exploration, the legal and standing issues regarding a vessel operating in international waters. Before any of that becomes germane, the matters of individual risk and responsibility must be discussed.

Is someone climbing a mountain subject to others' regulatory proclivities? If you want to throw on a T-shirt, shorts, and ballet flats and ascend Colorado's Capitol Peak, considered the most "technical" of the state's 14K footers, should someone have the authority to tell you no, you must wear boots and a helmet, and carry certain gear? Sure, it's good advice, but ultimately the responsibility for your own life and safety is yours.

How about a racing hobbyist? Should the 70 year old billionaire who just died racing his car at a Colorado speedway have been debarred from taking the risk of high-speed driving?

Similarly, if someone wants to get into a submarine and visit the depths of the ocean floor, upon whom should the onus of responsibility lay? Yes, the world of contracts, waivers, disclaimers, and the like intrudes on such third-party services, but from a principled perspective, do you or I have standing to tell Titanic_Tourist_01, "no, you cannot go unless we or our proxies in the government decide it's ‘safe.’"

There is a big gap between libertarians and most others when it comes to the matter of safety regulations. Libertarians, even partial ones, believe that government has gone way too far in its intrusions on our choices and freedom of action, and we think that much of what government does is better sorted by market forces and the private organizations they've created and would continue to create. Yes, this drops more responsibility on individuals, but that's the point. For liberty to actually exist, people cannot be debarred from taking personal risks. Moreso, does anyone actually believe that the government gets it right all, or even most of, the time? That there aren't regulations that serve no positive purpose? That some safety measures are mere window dressing that do nothing more than cost money and reduce liberty? That companies and industries have tilted the tables in their favor in (too) many cases?

None of this means that we want to be wanton, or encourage wantonness. Nor does it mean that safety measures should not be implemented. Arguing that the State shouldn't mandate seat belts isn't the same as denouncing their use. I reserve the right to consider you a [redacted] if you don't wear one, but I allow that you have the right to be a non-seatbelt-wearing [redacted]. Ditto for motorcycle helmets, for drugs (medicinal or recreational), and for taking a ride in somebody's submarine.

People apparently take a certain satisfaction in being gatekeepers, in deciding what others shouldn't do (or even be exposed to), but such gatekeepers should reflexively be met with "who asked you" and "how is this any of your business?"

A couple caveats now follow:

First, the line where your risk-taking intersects with others' rights and liberties needs to be respected. Preferably via enforcement of liability principles and property rights before regulation, but the mechanism doesn't obviate the principle.

Second, what took a century to ravel shouldn't be unraveled in a day. Unwinding the regulatory state needs to happen in an orderly fashion, so that free-market structures have a chance to develop. We have some such structures now - private-sector testing and certifying organizations such as Underwriters Laboratories represent the better way - but the government regulatory monopoly crowds out and stifles more such from emerging. A private sector alternative to the FDA, even one that stands on highest scruples and integrity, cannot take root unless it is permitted to do so.

This is the "A to B" problem that too many people, no matter their political stripes, choose to ignore or give little heed. A different state of affairs cannot be decreed into existence, it must be evolved into for it to work. People who are used to "if it exists in the pharmacy, it is FDA approved, full stop" would need to grow into the idea that they might confirm the testing and affirmation of Pill_01 themselves. Seat belt and helmet use would be rewarded by a free market in the form of reduced deductibles or better insurance coverage, i.e. if you get into an accident and weren't wearing your belt, your insurer could say "you're on the hook for $5000 instead of $500." Or some other such mechanism. But, that'd require the government getting out of the way.

The caveats don't rebut the conclusion, they inform it. Technology and information access do likewise. Whereas a century-plus ago, the Pure Food and Drug Act might be deemed an improvement over insufficient market mechanisms, no such argument exists today. Sure, charlatans, misinformation, and snake oil will remain on the field of play in free markets, but they exist today despite the massive regulatory apparatus that's out there. That apparatus isn't benign, and it isn't cost-free, in dollars or in liberty. It's also fertile ground for shenanigans, regulatory capture, stifling of competition, and other rent-seeking behaviors.

And gatekeepers. Lots of gatekeepers. People who wouldn't do something and think that entitles them to prohibit you* from doing that something. If you want their help, great, ask for their advice. But, if you want them to regulate everyone else, you, too, are a gatekeeper.

Only gatekeepers like gatekeepers.