Consent to risk fallacy

The Logical Place

A common argument against counter-terrorism measures is that more people are killed each year by road accidents than by terrorists.  Whilst this point may be true, it is a false analogy and a red herring argument about counter-terrorism.

Whenever we travel in a car or even walk along a footpath, most people are aware that there is a small but finite risk of being injured or killed.  Yet this risk does not keep us away from roads.  We intuitively make an informal risk assessment that the level of this risk is acceptable in the circumstances.  In other words, we consent to take the risk of travelling in cars or walking along footpaths, because we decide that the low level of risk in these circumstances does not outweigh the benefits of using roads.

On the other hand, in western countries we do not consent to take the risk of being murdered…

View original post 81 more words

This entry was posted in economics on by .

About Jim Rose

Utopia - you are standing in it promotes a classical liberal view of the world and champion the mass flourishing of humanity through capitalism and the rule of law. The origin of the blog is explained in the first blog post at

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s