I agree that governments might have some small duty to advise the public and warn them if a product can or will hurt them. What I disagree with is them mandating that a product that might hurt you if used stupidly be modified or removed from the market. Personally, the less government intervention with individual choice, the better. I am a strong proponent of personal responsibility and personal liability. The ONLY requirement I feel a company should have is perhaps a warning message stating that if you do (a) then (b) might result. If you go ahead and do (a) then tough luck! You were warned… I agree that, currently, people who damage their ears may end up getting public compensation and we all end up paying. However, like I said before, they should NOT be eligible for such assistance. Personally, I believe the ONLY purpose of government is to protect it citizenry from physical harm (either internal or external) - i.e. the police and the military. Some product liabilitly laws and corporate and evironmental regulation could also be classed under this mandate. However, protecting us from OURSELVES is NOT part of their mandate. And, yes, some people who scream against the nanny state will be the first in line when they hurt themselves. To which I say, TOUGH! I tend to view government and citizenship as a contract that works both ways – personally, I feel I should be able to opt out of things like Social Security and/or Medicare and invest the funds myself and purchase private long term medical insurance funded by an annuity. If someone chooses to opt out and then DOESN’T invest the money or use it wisely, then that’s their problem later on. If someone makes bad decisions, they should suffer the consequences of their actions and the government should not intervene in any way. If this means that someone opts out and has no access to medical care, food or housing, then thats fine by me. Neither the government nor the health industry should have to help them in any way. If this means that they cannot survive, so be it!