> The psychology people seem to have is to believe that if
the government regulates it, then anything that falls under
the regulation requires no independent thought.
But according to your own line of thought, shouldn't people be fully responsible for their own conduct, regardless of the surrounding circumstances? If so, how is lack of governement regulation going to help people determine the correct speed to go at on icy roads?
My point is just that a rational person generally uses his/her cognitive faculties to assess risk, but that regulation often leads to short-circuiting of critical thought.
The heuristic becomes one of people believing that the government must have already looked out for all dangerous possibilities, so anything that is legal is safe.
I don't feel the need to look down my nose and say "people should be individually responsible" because I don't consider that productive. I think people are naturally responsible enough to look out for their own interests, unless they are misled.
One example: investors in Madoff's hedge fund were misled by the SEC stamp of approval on that fund. Don't you think that normal scepticism about the returns ought to have led to some scrutiny?
But according to your own line of thought, shouldn't people be fully responsible for their own conduct, regardless of the surrounding circumstances? If so, how is lack of governement regulation going to help people determine the correct speed to go at on icy roads?