Original subtitles

example I have just one more this has to

do with the the Ford Pinto I'm not sure

if you're aware of the recent

Revelations that have come out about the

production of that car Ford produced it

knowing full well that in any rearend

Collision the gas tank would blow up

because they had failed to install a $13

plastic Block in front of the gas tank

and Ford estimated in an internal memo

that that would cost about 200 lives a

year they estimated further that the

cost of each life would be

$200,000 they multiplied and they found

that the cost of installing those blocks

in each of the cars would be more than

the cost of saving those 200 lives and

over the past seven years the car has

been produced and over a thousand lives

have been lost seems to me that Ford did

what would be the right thing according

to your policy and yet that seems to me

to be very wrong well let me ask you

let's suppose it would have cost a

billion dollars per person should Ford

have put them in another

you see you're you know that you're

really only arguing about price the pr

you're not arguing about principle

you're no no no because you cannot

nobody can take the principle nobody can

accept the

principle that the that an infinite

value should be put on an individual

life because in order to get the money

involved in order to get the resources

involved it's not money in order to get

the res they have to come from somewhere

and you want the policy which is

maximizes is a situation overall you

cannot accept a situation that a million

people should starve in order to provide

one person with a car that is completely

safe that's absolutely right and

therefore you're not arguing anything

about principle you're just asking

you're just arguing whether Ford used

$200,000 was the right number or not no

I'm not arguing suppose it were $200

million no no suppose it were $200

million what should Ford have done $200

million for what suppose it would have

cost $200

million per life saved

should Ford still have spent that $200

million you mean per that's not the

question that's not really the question

yes it is the

question that's the principle of the

question that's the only principle

involved I don't know whether Ford did

the right came to the right answer or

not that's a question of whether these

numbers are valid numbers for the

relative costs of different things

you're not arguing about a principle if

you once agree with me that if it had

been $200 million the cost per life saav

would have been $200

million you would not argue look let me

go back for a moment can I say something

in response to that if Ford had not been

able to Market those cars in the same

kind of economic bracket because of the

price of installing this one plastic

block that would be a different question

maybe Ford could have considered

redesigning the whole car so as to make

it cheaper but what we're talking about

is balancing advantages and balancing

principl just a minute I'm a supporter

of of abortion therefore I don't believe

that every single human life is sacred I

believe that principles have to be

balanced and yet I don't see Ford

spending $13 Less on each car at the

cost of 200 lives a year as being a

principled position to

take it been one fewer life a

year so that the $13 per car so that

that one life instead of being 200 times

what's 200 time 200,000 or

40 million suppose it had been one life

a year so it had cost 40 million would

it then have been okay for Ford not you

can't predict that one life is going to

be cost because of a physical defect in

the car this was a clear I know I know I

know but this is you're evading the

question of

principle no I'm not I'm saying that

they knew before they put the car out

that there was a mechanical defect you

know when you buy a car you know that

your chance of being killed in a pendo

is greater than your chance of being

killed in a m Trump no I didn't I didn't

know that the gas tank would

rupture of course it is a question every

one of us separately in this room could

at a cost reduce his risk of dying

tomorrow you don't have to walk across

the

street of course the question is is he

willing to pay for it and the question

here he should be raising if he wants to

raise a question of principle the

principle he should raise is whether

Ford wasn't required to attach to this

car the statement we have made this car

$13 cheaper and therefore it is one

whatever the percent is it is 1% more

risky for you to buy it but why now that

then he would be arguing a real question

of principle why should they do that

doesn't that interfere with the free

enterprise system that you're touting

why not because the consumer should be

free to decide what risk he wants to

Bear if you want to pay $13 extra for

that you should be free to do it if you

don't want to pay

$1 wait excuse me we have to keep it to

the audio over here so then the

government does have the right to

require information of Corporations is

that right no no the government has a

right to provide courts of law in which

corporations that deliberately conceal

material that is relevant can be sued

for fraud and made to pay very heavy

expenses and that is a desirable part of

the market of

course what I'm trying to say to you is

that these things are really a little

bit more subtle and sophisticated than

you are at first to believe there are no

e you can't get easy answers along this

line because your way of putting it

really only doesn't really get at the

fundamental principles involved the real

fundamental principle is that people

individually should be free to decide

how much they're willing to pay for uh

reducing the chances of their death now

people mostly aren't willing to pay very

much I personally regard this as very

very illogical I see people on all sides

of me

smoking now there's no doubt nobody

denies that that increases their chance

a death I'm not saying they shouldn't be

free to smoke don't misunderstand me I

just think they're fools to do

it

and and I know they're fools cuz I quit

on the basis of the evidence 18 years

ago but that's the real issue and if you

want to be rate forign you ought to be

rated on those terms not on the ground

that you don't think they use the right

numbers now look I don't think we can

keep on going very I'm afraid we're

going to run out of tape and I'm afraid

I'm going to run out of voice so I think

I'll call it again thank you