>Seat Belts: If individuals wanted them, the car companies would have followed suit. You forget that not only were seat belts mandated to be installed, but people were FINED if they didn't put them on.
Not sure i see an issue here, we know that individuals did not particularly want them, just as i would prefer not to wear a seatbelt on an airplane because i'm not capable of understanding at any given time what the likelihood of danger is on a plane. Do you get mad at the government went the fasten seatbelt sign goes on during turbulence?
> If there wasn't a state, I'm sure you'd have safety organizations putting out reports/studies about effectiveness of air bags
You are "sure" are you? congratulations, no one else is. You can't use hand waving to dismiss this problem.
>Rich people would buy them in their cars, poor people wouldn't
In a country that absolutely necessitates the use of a car, do you think its morally acceptable to keep airbags out of reach of the poor?
>and they don't do that now anyways
Are you under the impression that poor people in the US drive around in cars without airbags and seat belts?
>Fuel efficiency: ... Let me know how that's working out.
Its working quite well, I lease cars and each of my last three cars (3 years each, current car is due next month) were cheaper than the previous and more fuel efficient. For the record i was not switching types of cars - previous cars where pontiac G6, Chevy Malibu, Mazda 3, all similarly sized/priced cars.
>Again, if people wanted it, you wouldn't have to force them to do it.
OK so i want a 99 MPG car. If i dont have to force an automaker to produce one, why arent they? Youre looking at the market as a abstraction of reality. In reality an automakers motivation is profit, not sales. There are other ways of increasing profit than determining and matching consumer demand. To ignore this is far from trivial.
>Racial discrimination: This was enforced and perpetuated by state laws. Some would argue it still happens today with certain mandatory sentencing laws, minimum wage, etc.
Whats your argument here? That we would be better off with no state laws at all? That we would be better off with no regulation on discrimination in any direction?
>The free-market is more democracy than democracy is right now, and people fundamentally can not accept that.
Its not that people can't accept it, it is that a direct democracy is universally accepted as a terrible organizational structure. Theres a reason the US is NOT a democracy. There is no disagreement, the free market would be a direct democracy, and that is not a positive thing to say.