A Question in Applying Objectivist Politics

[Nate T.]

Hi everyone,

I was recently in a discussion on LiveJournal that centered around the following situation:

Suppose that a man with severe dog allergies decides to travel by plane. After the man boards, he realizes that there are other passengers with dogs and cats on the plane (this is in reality allowed by many airlines). Even after taking his emergency antihistamines, the person has an allergic reaction which requires medical treatment.

The questions:

Were any rights violated here? If so, who violated the rights of whom?

My thoughts are:

One could on one hand regard this as some sort of "fraud" on the part of the airline (they allowed pets on board and did not give the passenger notice that they would be entering an area that is hazardous to a significant portion of the population). If this were true, it would require that airlines give notification to their passengers about common allergens that may be present on their planes (pet dander, perfume, etc.)

However, I was told by other people on the thread that having pets in the passenger cabin of a plane was commonplace, and so it falls to the person with the allergy to make sure they take the necessary precautions if they decide to fly. More generally, these people claimed that in any situation like this, if one has a condition that requires need, it is the responsibility of the person to check beforehand to make sure that (1) they take any necessary precautions, if possible, and (2) make arrangements with the company.

Thoughts?

[DavidOdden]

It is the responsibility of the abnormal person to actively and aggressively inquire about conditions affecting him. There is no "ordinary" expectaction that the cabin is free of people with animals, peanuts or diseases. Your analysis is entirely correct.

[Nate T.]

It is the responsibility of the abnormal person to actively and aggressively inquire about conditions affecting him. There is no "ordinary" expectaction that the cabin is free of people with animals, peanuts or diseases. Your analysis is entirely correct.

A similar question (one that also came up naturally in the thread) I had a while ago is whether it is proper to have laws requiring food companies to label any products that may have come in contact with peanuts, since these foods can cause severe reactions in some people. Am I right to conclude that those laws are improper for the same reasons you mentioned?

[khaight]

A similar question (one that also came up naturally in the thread) I had a while ago is whether it is proper to have laws requiring food companies to label any products that may have come in contact with peanuts, since these foods can cause severe reactions in some people. Am I right to conclude that those laws are improper for the same reasons you mentioned?

Even apart from specifically Objectivist politics, it has long been a standard in law that people with unusual sensitivities have the primary responsibility for making sure those sensitivities are dealt with. Without that, everybody's public activities would be restricted to the lowest common denominator of activities acceptable to anybody.

[DavidOdden]

Am I right to conclude that those laws are improper for the same reasons you mentioned?

Yes. This is basically a market issue -- if customers generally demand full disclosure of product contents, then companies can list ingredients in order to make people happy and increase their market share. It would be wrong to lie about whether a product contained peanuts (and the company could be rightly sued for any damages arising from customer reliance on that information), but there is no obligation to answer the question, or to advertise in advance. Although as simple sensible business strategy, I would advocate listing potentially fatal ingredients like peanuts -- but the consumer has to take responsibility for their problems.