This happened about 30 years ago.

But it has never been reasonable for the government to issue "safety" regulations, for at least two reasons.

The first is that the government's "safety" regulations aren't really about safety – in much the same way that the drugs pushed on people weren't really about stopping the spread.

Just as when most people hear the word "vaccine," they instantly think of immunity, so also when they hear "safety," they instantly think about whether a car is dangerous to drive. Put another way, whether the car is defectively designed in some way that makes driving it risky. But that would be a case for the courts – not the regulatory apparat.

A car with brakes that fail is not the same as a car that does not have anti-lock brakes. The latter makes the car more controllable during panic braking; the former renders the car uncontrollable.

The distinction is important.

A person who buys a car with just brakes understands the car does not have anti-lock brakes; he knows the brakes can lock up the wheels if he stands on the brake pedal. But he has every right to expect that the car's brakes will work when he pushes on the brake pedal. If they do not – if he stands on the pedal and it goes to the floor because of defectively designed hydraulics that failed – then he has a case.

A person who is forced to buy anti-lock brakes he may have preferred not to buy also has a case – but of a different nature. He is not a victim of defective design but of regulatory over-reach. He – everyone – ought to have the right to buy ABS (or air bags) as optional equipment. But does the regulatory apparat have the right (as distinct from the power, which it obviously has) to require everyone who wants to buy a new car to buy such "safety" equipment?

That gets us to the second thing.