The fact of the matter, though, is that, while it may well make sense to increase the number of food inspectors and the like, we’re simply not going to be able to inspect every batch of food that goes out to consumers.

This is very true. It's also why we have consumer protection laws and strict product liability for those involved in the stream of commerce, whether in food products or other products. But unfortunately, there are some conservatives and libertarians out there that are fundamentally opposed to these legal protections.

But I'm afraid it isn't mindset or preconception ... I'm afraid it is brain structure and human nature. It falls in with "bad things easily visualized."

That's certainly possible, we are still ensnared by a host of genetic legacies. Still even in those cases, if we recognize them, we can try to mitigate their ability to sway us.

But I'm afraid it isn't mindset or preconception ... I'm afraid it is brain structure and human nature. It falls in with "bad things easily visualized."

That's certainly possible, we are still ensnared by a host of genetic legacies. Still even in those cases, if we recognize them, we can try to mitigate their ability to sway us.

I thought that they already had the authority to recall tainted food. Are all the recalls we have seen voluntary? If so it seems the current mechanism works well enough.

As PD pointed out this is going disproportionately to strike those with the weakest immune systems. This is and will remain true for virtually all health scares.

That said some restrictions should be rolled back. Small local vegetable and fish markets should have their regulatory burden lowered. Our local fish auction in Hilo was closed down for failure to adequately report where each fish sold came from. This is not such a great burden if you are hauling in tons of fish at a go, but if you are selling the catch of hundreds of small time local fishermen coming in with catches of at most a couple dozen it is impossible to stay in business. Maybe require signs to be posted warning consumers that the fish, vegetables, or whatever have not been inspected would suffice. As it is those sales have moved to the backs of peoples trucks on the side of the road.

That's the part that is irrational. Just because we have gotten into the mindset doesn't mean it makes any sense. Sometimes you have to take a step back from the preconceptions and go "WTH?"

I agree with the bulk of what you say, that this is irrational, etc.

But I'm afraid it isn't mindset or preconception ... I'm afraid it is brain structure and human nature. It falls in with "bad things easily visualized."

For murders, we spend inordinate resources trying to stop the largely unstoppable.

Our justice system is targeted on avenging crime, not preventing it.

For murders, we spend inordinate resources trying to stop the largely unstoppable.

Do we actually try to "stop" murders? Not really until they are in the offing (attempted or when someone makes direct threats).

Death from accident doing things that everybody does everyday is simply not the same as being murdered. Indeed, we have more deaths from car accidents each year than ordinary criminal murders, too. But we consider the former an acceptable risk of living and the latter unacceptable.

That's the part that is irrational. Just because we have gotten into the mindset doesn't mean it makes any sense. Sometimes you have to take a step back from the preconceptions and go "WTH?"

A person dead in a car accident is just as dead as one in a terrorist attack. They still died of a preventable event and not from say old age. That being the case where is the big difference, other than that in terrorism we get the feel good aspect of having someone to blame and in the auto accident we may not...

We tend to take prudent countermeasures like better vehicle and road engineering that can be mostly outsourced to individuals and companies as well as providing some speed limit and other law enforcement aimed at road safety.

Clearly those countermeasures need to be revisited, and badly. Put it this way: a 1% improvement in auto deaths would have saved us the same number of people as a 100% improvement in domestic terrorism deaths during the course of the Bush years.

For murders, we spend inordinate resources trying to stop the largely unstoppable. But we feel as a society that we have to try because murder is heinous and intentional while car accidents are tragic happenstance.

Again this is the part that is irrational if you stop and look at objectively. There's no reason to spend so excessively more effort on a minuscule cause of harm. Effort should be proportional to the harm modified by the efficiency of the effort (in other words if we can make a big difference in a small harm with a slightly disproportionate effort then that's probably worthwhile).

Was it rational (in hindsight) for Lincoln to go to war over the one fatality at Fort Sumter, which eventually resulted in one million dead or wounded Americans and the freeing of four million slaves?

My view is that there injuries to the state which are distinct from injuries to the person that the state has a special responsibility to address. Unless you want to live in a dystopian novel of complete statist control of all facets of life, the state has no responsibility to keep individuals safe from all risks of harm.

if the sum total of Americans killed by terrorism in our entire history, world wide, is less than 20,000 (and it is) and we have ~40,000 Americans killed in auto accidents EVERY year then it becomes pretty obvious that spending a trillion dollars on counter terrorism is just irrational.

No, not at all. Now, I think we're likely over-spending on CT and that much of our CT money is likely being misspent. But it doesn't follow from the above.

Death from accident doing things that everybody does everyday is simply not the same as being murdered. Indeed, we have more deaths from car accidents each year than ordinary criminal murders, too. But we consider the former an acceptable risk of living and the latter unacceptable.

We tend to take prudent countermeasures like better vehicle and road engineering that can be mostly outsourced to individuals and companies as well as providing some speed limit and other law enforcement aimed at road safety. For murders, we spend inordinate resources trying to stop the largely unstoppable. But we feel as a society that we have to try because murder is heinous and intentional while car accidents are tragic happenstance.

But there’s no such thing as “e. coli conservatism.” While there are a handful of anarco capitalists out there, even those of us who prefer our government small recognize the need for the FDA and USDA in a globalized world.

I'd really like to believe that. Unfortunately I think that the weight of evidence shows that there are strong contingents of the GOP that are very happy to undercut any and all regulatory bodies. It's really just not a coincidence that we had a bunch of mine accidents, a bunch of food poisoning, and so on after electing people who openly disdain any efforts to regulate "free" markets.

And, sad to say, this is one area where the wingnut right's worst impulses are not ameliorated by an influx of libertarian thought. The opposite unfortunately.

Oh, c’mon. We’re comparing apples and skyscrapers here.

While technically true, I think it misses the point. When determining priorities you always have to rank things that are not directly comparable. That said if the sum total of Americans killed by terrorism in our entire history, world wide, is less than 20,000 (and it is) and we have ~40,000 Americans killed in auto accidents EVERY year then it becomes pretty obvious that spending a trillion dollars on counter terrorism is just irrational. The problem, while blatant, is actually very minor.

Does that mean we should ZBB all counter terrorism? No, there are certainly counter terrorism efforts that are worth while. But Terrorism has been the very top priority of our government for 8 flippin years!

Obviously the problem does not warrant the efforts taken in response.