Mises Daily

A
A
Home | Library | Privatize Risk

Privatize Risk

November 22, 1999

Sixty-year old Jan Davis plunged to her death because her borrowed
parachute didn't open during a jump she made from El Capitan, in Yosemite
National Park, on October 22. Her death immediately sparked a storm of controversy concerning how much risk people should be permitted to undertake in a free society.

When adventurers want to indulge their fancy, the question arises how
this might be done so that they confine the risk to themselves. And
adventures are a big part of any human life, though they do not always
involve fatal risks. When the adventure takes place in a
public realm, political trouble looms on the horizon.

The problem with public spheres such as national forests is that they
are public, that is, owned by the government. Policy there will be decided in the customary
semi-democratic fashion in which public policies get decided. If there
is a substantial and active majority in favor of some policy, it will
be implemented, never mind its objective merits. The same goes when it
is opposed.

A good example is race car driving in most parts of the world. It is
certainly a hazardous activity, yet it is not banned but accommodated,
given that most people want it. True, it is accommodated often on
private race tracks. But it is quite often conducted on public roads,
as are bicycle and motorcycle races. Even normal driving qualifies as a
publicly approved hazardous activity: people want to drive and often at
speeds and on roads that are pretty dangerous.

Eating various foods, too, can be hazardous to one's health, but since
it goes on in private, the public authorities haven't quite managed to
regulate it as per their caprice.

Not so with smoking.
Still, only where the substantial majority has decided that smoking
should be banned has it been made illegal or regulated so as not to encourage most folks to light up. Depending on the political winds,
one can see democratic societies favor or discourage various risky
conduct.

At Yosemite National Park officials, probably following hints from the
relevant political constituency, decided no longer to allow the
hazardous activity of parachute jumping. It is this decision that,
ironically, Jan Davis was protesting with her jump when she met her
demise.

Yet, if support for the jumps came from a large enough segment
of the California population to make politicians fear banning the
activity, this particular jump might never have been made. Instead
jumps of a more routine kind would have continued.

But the ways of
democracy are that the politically active majority decides, regardless
of the merits of some practice or the rights of those who engage in it.

And that is not the way a free society should function. One way to
help matters is to privatize the places where risky tasks are to be
undertaken.

If a place like Yosemite were private, the owners could decided
whether to permit parachuting. And they would have strong incentives
to make sure that if they do allow it, it would not involve lax safety
measures, lest they become liable for mishaps. Or chutists could form
associations that could purchase places suitable for jumping (and
perhaps other recreational and productive activities) and jump at their
own risk. Insurance companies could set standards that would make it
more imperative to address safety measures. Government bans, however,
would not be an option.

Why would this be wise? Because that is how individual rights are
best protected. Making it possible for people to do risky things is
part of protecting their rights. Indeed, we all routinely do take
risks, but perhaps ones that are widely approved of, when we undertake
risks that the majority does not wish to ban.

Why should risks the majority--or their hired bureaucrats--wants to ban be
prohibited? There is no good reason. Of course, perhaps the risks
should not be taken. But then perhaps one shouldn't jump into one's
car or catch a plane and rush about for various more or less
unimportant purposes, given that the probability of getting involved in
a crash is never zero. That the majority doesn't find that
objectionable doesn't make the risk taking any different, however.

The simple fact is that some people find parachute jumping and other
somewhat unusually risky activities important enough to them, given who
they are, that they want to pursue these, never mind what the majority
thinks of it. And why should they be forbidden to?

The fact that it may be hazardous is not a good reason--we have
already seen that hundreds of hazardous activities are permitted.
Free men and women are free precisely in that they govern their own
lives. And if others want to govern them, they must gain consent. Not
just democratic support but individual consent. That is what
individual freedom means. And motorcycle jumpers, chutists, deep sea
divers and skiers are not exempt from having their basic individual
rights respected and protected.

But the larger the public realm (that which the government controls) becomes, the more individuals will
become subject to public authority in all realms of conduct that should
in fact remain private (or social with willing companions). In a
democratic system that means that all of us are subject to the will of
the politically outspoken majority. In a dictatorship it means subject
to the will of the tyrant.

So as not to allow democracies to turn into tyrannies of the majority,
public realms need to be reduced--fewer places must fall under public
authority and more need to fall under private authority. Yes, this may pose risks. But what kind of freedom does
not pose risks?

______________________
TIBOR R. MACHAN teaches philosophy at Chapman University and is an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute.


Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

Follow Mises Institute