When someone voluntarily exposes herself to risk why do economists
argue that it is unnecessary to have gvernment involvement?

---

Request for Question Clarification by lot-ga on 28 Jul 2002 16:57 PDT

Are you wanting the principle of laissez faire?

If the person exposed to risk is a worker, an economist might argue
that the risk is compensated adequately by an increase in the workers
salary (some jobs do actually have a component of "hazard pay" but
it's hard to argue that most do, if you ask me).

If the person is not a worker but, for example, lives in a community
near a factory that is polluting the drinking water, again, the
economist might argue that the person is adequately compensated by the
benefits that the factory brings to the community.

It's a stretch, sure, but I've certainly heard my share of economists
try to make this case.