1. but when two people have intercourse with each others consent... I don't see the crime in that....
2. what is health care for in the first place??? When you are NOT sick you still have to pay taxes now if you have payed taxes all your life and later on in your life, you find out you are HIV positive you have already payed taxes for a big portion of your life, so why should your freedom be comprimised??? you have payed taxes, so when you get sick, those taxes will come back and take care of you.
Please stop the dots, I used to do it as well (bcoz from chattin) but its really irritating on a forum when reading and forming replies.
I will post a link and some sentences on Externaltities which everyone must understand to understand the reasons why restricting actions might be necessary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
In
economics, an
externality is a side effect from one activity which has consequences for another activity but is not reflected in market prices. Externalities can be either positive, when an external benefit is generated, or negative, when an external cost is generated from a market transaction.
An externality occurs when a decision causes costs or benefits to
stakeholders other than the person making the decision, often, though not necessarily, from the use of
common goods (for example, a decision which results in
pollution of the
atmosphere would involve an externality). In other words, the decision-maker does not bear all of the costs or reap all of the gains from his or her action. As a result, in a competitive market too much or too little of the good will be consumed from the point of view of society. If the world around the person making the decision benefits more than he does, such as in areas of
education, or
safety, then the good will be underprovided; if the costs to the world exceed the costs to the individual making the choice in areas such as pollution or
crime then the good will be overprovided from society's point of view.
In our situation of HIV we are interested in negative externalitiy.
Negative externalities
The graph below shows the effects of a negative externality. For example, the
steel industry is assumed to be selling in a competitive market ââ¬â before pollution-control laws were imposed and enforced (e.g. under
laissez-faire). The marginal private cost is less than the marginal social or public cost by the amount of the external cost, i.e., the cost of
air pollution and
water pollution. This is represented by the vertical distance between the two supply curves. It is assumed that there are no external benefits, so that social benefit
equals individual benefit.
If the consumers only take into account their own private cost, they will end up at price
Pp and quantity
Qp, instead of the more efficient price
Ps and quantity
Qs. These latter reflect the idea that the marginal social benefit should equal the marginal social cost, that is that production should be increased
only as long as the marginal social benefit exceeds the marginal social cost. The result is that a
free market is
inefficient since at the quantity
Qp, the social benefit is less than the societal cost, so society as a whole would be better off if the goods between
Qp and
Qs had not been produced. The problem is that people are buying and consuming
too much steel.
This discussion implies that pollution is
more than merely an ethical problem; it is more than just "greedy" and
profit-maximizing firms. The problem is one of the disjuncture between marginal and social costs that is not solved by the
free market. There is a problem of societal communication and coordination to balance benefits and costs.
:disappointed: So some
collective solution is needed, such as, government intervention banning or discouraging pollution, by means of economic incentives such as taxes, or an alternative economy such as
participatory economics.:disappointed: (the smilyes r jus 2 draw attention 2 main point)
Coase theorem
Ronald Coase argued that individuals could
organize bargains so as to bring about an efficient outcome and eliminate externalities without government intervention. The government should restrict its role to facilitating bargaining among the affected groups or individuals and to enforcing any contracts that result. This result, often known as the "
Coase Theorem," requires that
- Property rights are well defined;
- People act rationally
- Transaction costs are minimal
Only if all three of these apply, will individual bargaining solve the problem of externalities.
Thus, this theorem does not apply to the steel industry case discussed above. For example, with a steel factory that trespasses on the lungs of a large number of individuals with its pollution, it is difficult if not impossible for any one person to negotiate to be with big external costs, to regulate the firm while paying for the regulation with
taxes.
1. The "crime" is that there is an external cost which means that people will over engage in high risk behaivour.
2. Do you know why they have speed limits on roads? The govt. doesnt give a rats arrsse about a person driving and killing themselves. However because health care is subsidized humans being rational overspeed and get injured more than the "optimal" level. Similarly giving subsidized health care makes people take more risks than "optimal". Also like overspeeding you kill other drivers, I mean i like overspeeding because i reach destination quicker. I like overspeeding because there is a benefit for me to speed, but the people i kill while overspeeding dont get any benefit. Therefore speed limits "internalises" the external costs of speeding on other motorists. Similarly people going to prostitutes impose external costs on their unsuspecting wives (just like other motorists) the wife doesnt get any benefit from the husband having some fun but she does face increased risk. Therefore throwing a few prostitutes and their customers in jail once in a while "internalises" some of the external costs of high risk behaviour. Most people speeding dont get fined but the mere prospect of the threat of being fined ensures that people reduce their risk to optimal level.
Hope you understand.
now, how many people go to someone and ask, "please box me in the face." Now comparing that to prostitution is completely wrong, because AIDs infected prostitutes do not come up to you and forcibly inject AIDs... its actually the other way where people hire prostitutes KNOWING (if you have AIDs awareness programs) that they run a risk of being infected... see... two different things.... and if you infect someone else with AIDs without telling them that you yourself are suffer from the disease... then my friend, there can be a court case run against you...
