Economics is the study of unintended consequences. Safety codes are merely the inadequate and disproportionate reaction to unintended consequences. America is addicted to safety codes, and the victim is liberty. FULL ARTICLE by Aaron Everitt
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/12921/government-codes-vs-innovation-2/
Government Codes vs. Innovation
Previous post: “Peter’s a Natural”
{ 89 comments }
Sigh…. and we get the twin oppressions of Mercantilism and Corporatism in the USA.
Codevilla was right – we’re merely subjects of this regime.
I am reminded of a story I heard about a tragic event involving a small child, who got his hoodie string caught on a plastic slide and was strangled to death on the playground. His mother was so devastated from the whole event that she went on a nation wide campaign to ban all strings from the hoods of children’s coats and sweaters. Obviously the mother did not achieve her goal, and rightfully so. Nobody is detracting from the tragedy of a freak accident by not jumping on the reactionary bandwagon. It’s truly awful that that child died, but there are billions of people on this earth, and the laws of probability say that people are going to die due to some strange circumstances. It would be literally impossible to eliminate risk entirely, so where do we draw the line?
I am a full fledged Austrian, but I feel that this is one of our weakest points…. I constantly concede in argument that some regulatory agency is necessary to protect people at some level. The difficulty as I posed above is determining this seemingly arbitrary level. Should it be the same as the 1 death in a million people risk level that has been deemed safe for carcinogenic contaminates by the EPA? I mean, why 1 in a million? Especially if the sector that needs regulating is relatively specialized and doesn’t cater to a million people, what then? And how can this even be determined without being reactionary?
I know we can all agree that regardless to the question of necessity, the current system is doing a terrible job. Is our answer that, like in healthcare in the 40′s and 50′s where, with no government intervention, privately sponsored charity hospitals rose to fill the social responsibility to care for the sick, but the second the government got involved the responsibility was lifted and placed on the state’s shoulders… and now look at it, so we prophesy that with consumer safety the societal need is so great that without government intervention some private company (like the charity hospitals, but there’s no reason it would be charity) will step in to provide consumer quality and safety reports?
“I am a full fledged Austrian, but I feel that this is one of our weakest points…”
You’re alone then. Private firms (and individuals more generally) already devise ways to ‘regulate’ their conduct and insure consumers that products are safe. Difference is, unlike monopolies instated by fiat, they add value to their customers’ wanted products, are responsive to market pressures (thus do not go overboard…), are bound by reality and are subjected themselves to competition. Hardly our “weakest” point. Regulation in fact is a resounding failure, and should be seen as the weakest point of any apologist for the state…
I am well aware that it is bad business to sell to your customers harmful products, but the validity of the counter Austrian argument for regulation is fueled by the concept of externalities.
Our discussion regarding the inefficiencies of the government to enforce its regulations are well met, but I still don’t believe that we offer a solution that is equitable enough to sway non-Austrians. Sure BP is losing out big by all the profit they are losing from spilled oil. It is absolutely bad business for them to be so careless, and the market will likely bankrupt BP and other such negligent companies. But they are not the only ones effected by their mistake. The consequences of bad business practices can have a tendency to ‘spill over’ to the public, who are not in even a voluntary contract with the business. And retro-active compensation often times falls short of amending the dispute, especially when human lives are involved.
I don’t pretend to offer a solution in my argument, which is why I asked questions in my initial post.
Another case of externalities would be environmental pollution. I’m not talking about greenhouse gases, but rather lethal or even just harmful contaminants in the air, water, or soil. There is nothing in the producer consumer relationship that would motivate a business to limit their impact on the environment. Other than a bad image to the public, but this is greatly diminished if the people negatively affected are geographically distant. What do the Austrians propose to solve this problem other than government interference?
If the externalized problem lies outside the realm of the market how do you suppose the market can solve it? I really would like to hear a persuasive argument that answers this question. It is one that has frustrated me greatly in my discussions with liberals. Please let me know how to argue our case.
I realize now that the this ^ topic above is a digression from the consumer safety issue addressed in this article. Thanks to Daniel Hewit’s links I see now how the market is already doing a better job of self regulating than the government could hope to do.
Maybe I should have posted what I did above in another thread, but I still feel that it is pertinent tot he discussion of regulations, and I know that the correlation exists in the minds of many non-Austrians.
“I am well aware that it is bad business to sell to your customers harmful products, but the validity of the counter Austrian argument for regulation is fueled by the concept of externalities.”
It is?
“Our discussion regarding the inefficiencies of the government to enforce its regulations are well met, but I still don’t believe that we offer a solution that is equitable enough to sway non-Austrians.”
Depends on what you mean by “equitable”.
” Sure BP is losing out big by all the profit they are losing from spilled oil. It is absolutely bad business for them to be so careless, and the market will likely bankrupt BP and other such negligent companies. But they are not the only ones effected by their mistake. The consequences of bad business practices can have a tendency to ’spill over’ to the public, who are not in even a voluntary contract with the business.”
To whom they owe restitution where it is provable that they caused harm…
“And retro-active compensation often times falls short of amending the dispute, especially when human lives are involved.”
Accidents happen.
“There is nothing in the producer consumer relationship that would motivate a business to limit their impact on the environment.”
Really? The problem is that pollutors are not made to pay the costs of the harm they impose on others. Government courts certainly do nothing to ameliorate this, in fact they may even facilitate it. A certain degree of pollution will be “homesteaded” by e.g. nearby road-owners, factories etc. and over time emissions causing provable time over and above this level could incur liabilities for the polluting firm.
“If the externalized problem lies outside the realm of the market how do you suppose the market can solve it? ”
Possibly because they do not have an inkling of understanding how property rights function…
“Depends on what you mean by “equitable”.”
I would define equitable as reasonable and rational enough to appeal to someone who isn’t entirely convinced that every facet of society can be privatized. It’s not very difficult to say “The government itself is one big externality” in a mises blog because people here are well read as to the arguments behind that statement. I agree completely, but I’ve also read Rothbard, Mises, and Hayek, where as most people don’t share my fascination with economics. How do we convince someone who doesn’t “have an inkling of understanding how property rights function” of our case here without convincing them that every dirt, air, and water particle should be privately owned?
“The problem is that pollutors are not made to pay the costs of the harm they impose on others.”
It is exceedingly difficult to arbitrarily value the cost of suffering, especially when the damage to people is irreversible or fatal. Let me provide a specific example of a case in which this is relevant. Coal mining exposes coal to the air which oxidizes a portion of it and causes it to become acidic. There is no way to prevent this acid from causing surface to ground water contamination which lowers the PH of the surrounding aquifers. The simple fix involves introducing a base to the groundwater that neutralizes this effect. Up until the last hundred years nothing was known about this, but even after the severity of this effect on the environment was proven, private industry did not self regulate. There was such a diminished motivation to do so compared to the cost that it took to neutralize the acid that government intervention had to force remediation. The other problem is that the consumers of coal were not directly impacted by the contamination so they weren’t going to force the companies to regulate by buying from the competition.
There are countless cases in groundwater contamination alone that discredit the view that industry will self regulate. No one will ever be swayed to the Austrian view by assurances that the companies will compensate for victims later. What if the victim is dead? What if the company is no longer in business? What if the company is operating in a rural area and makes a cost analysis and determines that the cost of a half dozen lives in compensation is less than the cost to avoid contamination? Again, how do you price someones suffering?
“How do we convince someone who doesn’t “have an inkling of understanding how property rights function” of our case here without convincing them that every dirt, air, and water particle should be privately owned?”By not agreeing with them that the government can actually solve the problem, for one, when it is manifestly incapable of it…”It is exceedingly difficult to arbitrarily value the cost of suffering, especially when the damage to people is irreversible or fatal. ”
And it is exceedingly difficult to predict all the costs a regulation will impose in advance. The role of courts is to determine these costs to property owners/persons. Damages have occured. Where they have not, I cannot even fathom why one should care.
“No one will ever be swayed to the Austrian view by assurances that the companies will compensate for victims later.”
So rather, we should punish for crimes before they even occur. Sounds brilliant. Maybe force people to abstain from drinking in case they drive and crash into someone.
“What if the victim is dead?”
Like murder…?
“What if the company is no longer in business?”
The individuals behind it still exist…
” What if the company is operating in a rural area and makes a cost analysis and determines that the cost of a half dozen lives in compensation is less than the cost to avoid contamination? Again, how do you price someones suffering?”
What’s the relevance even? Companies have done this. So what? There’s no such thing as 0 risk activities. You merely disagree about the price label being attributed. Companies defrauding consumers/harming 3rd parties should pay the price. Yes, determining costs are difficult. That’s why courts exist, to determine appropriate punishments. Yes, it is ex post facto (except to the extent that its costs act as a deterrent to future activity transpiring…) Actions should be outlawed because they “might” cause harm? Right now firms often do not have to bear the costs of these actions, or only do so in the most indirect fashion imaginable. You attribute these problems to ‘externalities’… as if externalities cannot be internalised.
“By not agreeing with them that the government can actually solve the problem, for one, when it is manifestly incapable of it…”
I’m sorry for being so difficult, because in practically every other case of government intervention I would wholeheartedly agree with you, but regarding the very specific case of groundwater contamination (to keep the argument concise), I think that the government is very capable of achieving its intended purpose more efficiently than the legislative nightmare that would ensue from property rights litigation. Unless the legal system were also completely re-vamped to address this specific issue.
I suppose the threat of future litigation would provide the same incentive towards safety that government regulations do. But with cancer it just seems so difficult to attribute the root cause to any specific thing. Damn near everything is carcinogenic. So even if someone did get cancer from groundwater contamination that was at an unsafe level, how could they ever prove where it was from? Or do you propose that any introduction of carcinogenic chemicals that were introduced to the air around someones house, or in their soil, or in the ground water tied into their wells could be determined through court to be compensated for? And what about when someone isn’t on their own property but they are introduced to contaminates that could have simply been contained through regulation, how could property rights settle that dispute?
“So rather, we should punish for crimes before they even occur. Sounds brilliant. Maybe force people to abstain from drinking in case they drive and crash into someone.”
Instituting preventative measures, even forced, is hardly punishment for a hypothetical future crime. Ground water contamination will kill people. If you clean it up, it won’t. I’m not saying that we should live in a daycare society where plastic bubbles protect us from ever scraping our knees, in fact I detest the idea that I am incapable of rationally making my own risk analysis for my actions. However the intricacies of chemical geohydrology are not well known to the average person. So how does an unqualified person make the necessary risk assessment?
“You merely disagree about the price label being attributed”
Good point. And I think the law already exists that says a company cannot knowingly weigh profit against life, so the point is probably moot anyways.
“I’m sorry for being so difficult, because in practically every other case of government intervention I would wholeheartedly agree with you, but regarding the very specific case of groundwater contamination (to keep the argument concise), I think that the government is very capable of achieving its intended purpose more efficiently than the legislative nightmare that would ensue from property rights litigation. Unless the legal system were also completely re-vamped to address this specific issue.”
I am discussing this with a libertarian legal system in mind, I care not for the present one, as it is rife with its own inefficiencies attendant upon any monopolised system of justice. The government can enact preventative legislation but cannot a) weigh up the costs involved, because these are necessarily subjective and fall upon the parties involved – thus it cannot say the costs of its actions outweigh the benefits for it simply has no idea what the “costs” to the prohibited party are and b) divine the unintended consequences that may ensue by over-regulating (e.g. stifling innovations, incentivising people to find loopholes &c.), or indeed under-regulating (e.g. by fostering a false sense of security.)
“So even if someone did get cancer from groundwater contamination that was at an unsafe level, how could they ever prove where it was from? Or do you propose that any introduction of carcinogenic chemicals that were introduced to the air around someones house, or in their soil, or in the ground water tied into their wells could be determined through court to be compensated for?”
Unless it is provable in court, there is really no case to be made. Really in the end it would be up to the court in question to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to award damages.
“And what about when someone isn’t on their own property but they are introduced to contaminates that could have simply been contained through regulation, how could property rights settle that dispute?”
Depends. How were they introduced to them? Violations of person are as much harm if not more so than violations of property. Libertarians indeed treat personal violations as a particular species of property violation.
“Instituting preventative measures, even forced, is hardly punishment for a hypothetical future crime.”
It is outlawing otherwise lawful activity on the basis that it “might” kill some unspecified victim or otherwise aggrieve them.
“Ground water contamination will kill people. If you clean it up, it won’t. I’m not saying that we should live in a daycare society where plastic bubbles protect us from ever scraping our knees, in fact I detest the idea that I am incapable of rationally making my own risk analysis for my actions. However the intricacies of chemical geohydrology are not well known to the average person. So how does an unqualified person make the necessary risk assessment?”
Wait… if you’re referring to poisoning owned water sources (however it occasions), then there’s definitely a case for punishing the criminal/negligent individual(s) in question. And a cleanup would be necessary. Depends on how easily proven it is that the alleged criminal caused the problem.
“Good point. And I think the law already exists that says a company cannot knowingly weigh profit against life, so the point is probably moot anyways.”
So it’s better that it does so ignorantly? I mean, there’s a probability with certain products some will be defective and lead to losses of lives, and the firm must calculate the cost of related suits and damages it may pay out…
Give this a read:
http://www.catallaxia.free.fr/www.liberaux.org%20-%20Rothbard%20-%20Law,%20Property%20Rights,%20and%20Air%20Pollution.pdf
Thank you Inquisitor for the references. Rothbard’s essay especially gave me some ideas to think about. Let me illustrate what I think he is implying in his argument. I pulled three quotations from Rothbard’s Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution.
“But suppose it is later discovered that radio waves are harmful, that they cause cancer or some other illness? Then they would be interfering with the use of property in one’s person and should be illegal and enjoined, provided of course that this proof of harm and the casual connection between the specific invaders and specific victims are established beyond a reasonable doubt” (Rothbard, pg 32).
“As Paul Downing says, “Currently, a party who has been damaged by air pollution must prove in court that emitter A did it, and not emitter B. This is almost always an impossible task.” If true, then we must assent uncomplainingly. After all causality is a basic principle of civilized law, let alone of libertarian legal theory… The prevalence of multiple sources of pollution emissions is a problem. How are we to blame emitter A if there are other emitters or if there are natural sources of emission? Whatever the answer, it must not come at the expense of throwing out proper standards of proof, and conferring unjust special privileges on plaintiffs and special burdens on defendants” (Rothbard, pg 39).
“It should be underlined that in libertarian legal theory, only the victim (or his heirs and assigns) can legitimately press suit against alleged transgressors” (Rothbard, pg 41).
First of he makes it clear that all preventative regulations are unjust. And we’ve already discussed the ‘why’ of this at length. So in the hypothetical case of carcinogenic contaminants that are emitted into the air and water, libertarian law states that the plaintiff must provide proof without a reasonable doubt that the defendant was an aggressor. Rothbard insinuates that there are difficulties with this due to there being multiple other sources that could also be the cause of harm. I agree with Paul Downing that in most cases this would be impossible.
However I think that the problem has a solution that can fit into the framework of libertarian law. Please let me know if I am off track. The toxicity of most chemicals is well known and quantitatively defined. This information could be used to pursue litigation before the plaintiff actually contacted cancer, yes? The company’s chemicals are exposing him to elevated risk levels for cancer, so is he not deserving of compensation? In this way the subjective value of this elevated risk could be negotiated between both parties (though likely the company would self regulate the levels due to the volume of plaintiffs).
I should add, even preventative measures are retrospective… they won’t address new threats and will just mirror (if they do at all) the effects litigation would have in terms of disincentivising the activity (by making it costly.) In terms of prevention, of course, there’s always “new” ways of doing things and getting round it through unforeseen methods. Whereas forcing the payment of damages to aggrieved parties is the internalisation of a former externality. I’d give this a read too…:
https://mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf
As for areas of the environment that cannot be owned (which Gil mentioned), given that the government controls who can appropriate what now, it should be evident how it is at blame there too, by allowing for the perpetuation of a “commons” scenario.
“However I think that the problem has a solution that can fit into the framework of libertarian law. Please let me know if I am off track. The toxicity of most chemicals is well known and quantitatively defined. This information could be used to pursue litigation before the plaintiff actually contacted cancer, yes? The company’s chemicals are exposing him to elevated risk levels for cancer, so is he not deserving of compensation? In this way the subjective value of this elevated risk could be negotiated between both parties (though likely the company would self regulate the levels due to the volume of plaintiffs).”
They could pursue litigation if the threat were immediate and direct enough and there were not some pre-existing homesteading of pollution emissions by the firm in question, yes. Of course it would be up to a court to decide how high the probability must be etc. but at least theoretically the scenario you outline would be possible.
Again with the externalities. The government itself is one big externality, haven’t you noticed?
The externalities you are mostly referring to, as in the case of BP, are all products of government ownership and regulations and not any externality problem inherent in the capitalistic system. All of the coastlines and even the body of water itself is either government owned or prohibited from being privately owned by governments. If all of those areas were privately owned, then BP would not be able to externalize any such costs on the public.
I wish people would come to realise externalities are government induced. Using them against markets is just stupid.
People realize that government intervention causes externalities to productive capacity. It also is clear that the unintended consequences of intervention are also often the exact opposite of their intent, causing safety regulations to become harmful. But it is stupid to think that the market is incapable of producing externalities.
Hardly stupid, when the government actively monopolises the means of “redressing” these ‘externalities’…
No, externalities are necessarily the fault of the government. There are areas of the environment that cannot be privately owned via homesteading, e.g. the air and the sea. Besides where there’s a negative externality there’s usually a positive externality to go with it. The Industrial Revolution had many negatives and positives but Austrians would definitely say the positives far outweighed the negatives.
Is there any way to decouple the discussion about environmental regulations with the discussion of property rights, or are they inextricably linked? Maybe they are, but it seems like it would take a legislative quagmire, which would introduce another whole leviathan sector of government, to deal with these disputes. And how could we expect individual citizens to understand the magnitude in which they are effected by each individual cause?
I’m just trying to play devil’s advocate here because I have found that I don’t understand the Austrian position enough to sway other’s views on the subject.
You need to understand the knowledge problem or the economic calculation problem for you to realize that only under a system of private property can you even talk about meaningful “magnitudes” as they pertain to the effects of the different courses of actions.
For example, if you own a fishing resort and BP has killed your fish, then BP would be held liable for the estimated damage that you have incurred. The amount of money that it would be held liable for would be derived from the loss of market value of your property. That value of your property is also not arbitrary, for it tends to reflect the economic utility of your property as valued by others.
So there need not be any such externalities. All government regulations can do is to arbitrarily set liability caps, which will either be ridiculously low (ex: 75 million cap for BP), in which case risk taking is subsidized (not aligned with the wishes of consumers), or it will be higher then it ought to be, in which case safety is subsidized, and consumers must sacrifice more economically urgent needs.
I’m reposting something I wrote above because it is really the same thing we are talking about… I understand how something with clearly discernible monetary value could be compensated for, I also understand how something like suffering could, in fact I received pain & suffering money from a car accident that shattered my femur. But the case below I don’t see how property rights could help.
I suppose the threat of future litigation would provide the same incentive towards safety that government regulations do. But with cancer it just seems so difficult to attribute the root cause to any specific thing. Damn near everything is carcinogenic. So even if someone did get cancer from groundwater contamination that was at an unsafe level, how could they ever prove where it was from? Or do you propose that any introduction of carcinogenic chemicals that were introduced to the air around someones house, or in their soil, or in the ground water tied into their wells could be determined through court to be compensated for? And what about when someone isn’t on their own property but they are introduced to contaminates, that could have simply been contained through regulation, how could property rights settle that dispute?
The thing about carcinogenic contaminates is that they are limited right now to concentrations where there is the probability of causing one death in every million. With the inherent ambiguity involved in linking cancer to specific causes what other system, other than that of forced containment/remediation of carcinogenic chemicals could prevent cancer rates from skyrocketing?
Duh Jake: if you can’t prove a chemical can cause cancer then you can’t claim compensation if you think the chemical has caused your cancer. Then again many Austrians would probably argue no one has the right to dump harmless water in small quantities onto your property without your permission.
So Gil, do you think that all regulations limiting carcinogenic chemicals should still be eliminated regardless? Even though there is no way for the victim to protect themselves or even seek compensation?
The problem is that it’s not just your property that is effected here. It is the entire environment, including the air and the groundwater, which everyone has to interact with on a regular basis.
I just don’t see how anyone can be absolutest here. This is the kind of uncompromising stance that makes our philosophy difficult to justify to people. Try telling someone who’s dying of cancer that the positive externality is worth it. This is an emotional topic, because the suffering is immense and it doesn’t really cost that much to fix it.
I know we are talking extreme hypotheticals here, but I feel like this might be the one place that intervention is justified. I just hope that isn’t too “middle of the road” for Austrians to pick up on.
Jake, this is actually one of our stronger points. It does seem counter-intuitive at first, simply because we’ve all had the opposite thing hammered into our heads our whole lives. Some reading material to help you think your way through this.
http://mises.org/daily/3440
http://mises.org/daily/114
http://mises.org/daily/557
http://mises.org/daily/3842
The last one is my own article. Different industry, but it’s similar to Aaron Everitt’s article and comes to the same conclusion (based upon personal experience and observation, private regulation is much better than government regulation).
I know John Stossel also writes about this often – I’m sure you can find his stuff out there.
Good article! (I’m an engineer too by the way, though civil instead of mechanical)
Thank you for the references. I’ll have to read Walter Block’s case for the privatization of roads and highways. The piece on pollution was very interesting.
I was watching a show on HGTV a few months ago, in which the building code called for a certain type of nail to be used for construction, however the wood was genetically modified wood from a plantation and therefore was much harder than the typical natural pine. As a result almost all of the nails were being mangled as they tried to pound them in. They ended up using screws to fasten the frames together, and used just enough bent useless nails for the project to be “to code”.
the broken window fallacy aka the bent nail fallacy
I saw that, too; it was “Holmes on Homes.” He and his crew does great work, like “This Old House” used to do in the early, early ’80s when Bob Villa was still the host.
I seem to remember that the issue was that because that wood – not genetically modified, just a very dense hardwood species from South America – was so new to the market, the authors of the building code hadn’t had a chance to review it and make provisions on it. It’s acutally Holmes fault because the code allows you to use any alternate method for issues beyond what’s included, provided you can reasonably justify your position. He should have read the specs for the wood, used the screws, saved his nails, and then had a conversation with the building department. But contractors do silly things like that all the time and it made for an interesting segment on the show.
Worse, yet, compliance with the myriad regulations and directives offers no protection from civil lawsuits, no matter how frivolous. If we have compliance, should that not be a shield against predation from lawyers and their loopy clients? If we have the lawyers and their clients, why do we need the regulations? E.g., a guy insisted in flying his airplane into a fuel truck that the airport manager had purposely parked across the runway. (Story goes that the guy owed money on his gas account. Big crash.) The airplane was 30+ years old and had been built in strict compliance with regulations then in effect. Not that it mattered, under these circumstances! So the pilot’s family successfully sued… Piper.
Today, as we see the BP mess unfold, we hear countless calls for executives’ heads to roll — but virtually no one is calling for prosecution of the tax-funded parasites who regularly and continuously assured us that nothing could possibly go wrong… If BP were in compliance, how do we have a right to extract more from them? If BP were not in compliance.. who was watching them? (If we didn’t have such great governmental oversight, what would have been different? Does anyone think BP prefers to pour oil into the Gulf, rather than into tankers?)
Yeah, I was supposed to get a permit to finish my basement, but I didn’t bother. If anything ever becomes of it, hopefully my town will just accept the explanation that I am a libertarian.
“and the victim is liberty”
The victim is much more then just liberty. It is more urgent wants being sacrificed for the sake of less urgent wants. What’s more, safety itself is one of those “urgent wants” that is eventually also diminished.
A shame there’s apparently no safety code on drilling wells in unstable strata, a mile below the surface of the water. Had we had one, a lot of trouble might have been averted in the Gulf. The fishing and tourism industries of four states might not have been crushed.
Too bad there wasn’t a safety code put in place for cigarette manufacture, back in 1938 when we first found out smoking led to early deaths from lung cancer. Millions of people might not have died 30 and 49 years prematurely.
But instead of looking at such unpleasant realities, let’s focus on something idiotic, like one toddler dying from the string on his hoodie. We don’t need protection! We are all invincible!
*sigh*AND THE BOGEYMAN MIGHT CRAWL OUT OF THE DARKNESS OF THE CLOSET IF THERE IS NOT A REGULATION STIPULATING CLOSETS BE LOCKED AT NIGHT, OR THAT THE AREA BENEATH BEDS BE INSULATED!
That is how stupid you sound. The point is that 1) these “regulations” are purely reactive (they cannot be preventive unless you “see” into the future and anticipate every single unforeseen contingency), they never really prevent anything and may be rendered obsolete in time and 2) they encourage indolence on the part of consumers in choosing what they buy. Add that they go overboard (or in some cases are not enough, but hey, it’s “gov’t approved”, therefore “safe”) and stifle innovation… Stop spewing gov’t propaganda here. It won’t find many fans. Now, if a firm is selling products on false pretenses, it is responsible for fraud. If it is not disclosing everything, its clientele should ask for more or refuse to consume. Honestly. But no. We need teh (bought out, monopolised) r3gul4t0rz to think for us…
You’re telling me that it would be impossible to foresee any problem if we drill holes in the bottom of the ocean to see whether oil gushes out? I think you are possibly doing your thinking with your emotions here. It is abundantly obvious that human beings have the capacity to foresee trouble even before it happens.
The smart man learns from personal experience. And the wise man learns from the experiences of others. But the prudent man can imagine a problem before it ever occurs.
“Stop spewing gov’t propaganda here. It won’t find many fans.”
Time for your medication, sir.
I am saying it is impossible to forecast the costs of regulatory activities, which may be even to stifle more innovative safety procedures coming in. They are enforced in blatant disregard of whether the owners consider it profitable at the time to implement these measures. They may err, or they may not have to bear the costs of failures/”accidents” due to government ineptitude. Such is life.
“I am saying it is impossible to forecast the costs of regulatory activities..”
However it is very easy to calculate the cost of a LACK of regulatory activities. As we are now seeing with those waivers of environmental impact assessments in Gulf oil drilling. How would you assess the cost of the losses we’re seeing in the fishing and tourism industries? Losses, I will point out, that will be extending for years into the future?
Compare those with the cost of preparing realistic risk scenarios, and improvising solutions to them.
Being careful does entail some added cost. You have to think of everything that can possibly go wrong, devise fixes for all those situations, and keep equipment on hand to put into place when and if something ever does happen. Or, you can save money by just not bothering.
Both the oil industry and the government have long tolerated lax procedures. I think that may be about to change. But of course by now the damage has been done. We only have one Gulf of Mexico, and we’ve fouled it.
No, it’s not unforseeable, that’s why we have actuarialists and insurance assessors. In a free market, B.P. wouldn’t have been able to get insurance for the drilling, plus if the area they had their rig was in a private parcel of water as opposed to the scam of “common ownership,” the projected liability costs would be so high as to instantly bankrupt them if there was even a stich of a fault.
They – B.P. – have no incentive to be truly safe because the government doesn’t respect private property, will far to easily allowl dangerous ventures to be undertaken as long as they get their cut, and ultimately limit B.P.’s liability in some way. Really, why would someone sabotage their own business or even be reasonably careless if they didn’t know they’d get away with it?
This is priceless. You’re telling me that BP has no incentive to prevent themselves from ruining the Gulf because they don’t own it? That sums up the difference between us.
Whether BP owns a little bit of the Gulf and gets sued by the owners of every other part of the Gulf, or the government acts in what is in essence a class action suit in everyone’s behalf, the fact is that they’re still very likely to enter bankruptcy with 99% of the liability unpaid.
“Really, why would someone sabotage their own business or even be reasonably careless if they didn’t know they’d get away with it?”
Do you think they’re getting away with it? That it was good business to neglect to manage their operation safely? They’re losing and we’re all losing. There are, and will be, no winners in this.
Yes, and if we just would have banned alcohol in 1920 we would have avoided so many problems… And if we outlawed certain drugs no one would die from them… If we just outlawed cars, just imagine how many deaths could have been avoided… Wait a second…why not just ban all oil, sugar, salt…genius!What we need is protection from you, Dr. Cocteau.
His fallacy is obvious. He sees the benefits but cannot (or will not) see the costs.
Thanks…I know, but it is so typical. I think maybe what we need is a really good statist dystopia flick with 3D and blue people?
What, exactly, would have been the cost of alerting the public back in 1938 that cigarette smokers had a strongly increased mortality, compared to nonsmokers?
They could have made their own personal choices based on superior knowledge. And as I recall, people who tout the wisdom of the markets always tell me they only work well when you assume perfect knowledge. Right?
I never said we should have banned cigarettes. That’s something my detractors here, not having thought of anything better to say, decided to slip into the conversation.
At any rate, the decision taken was to bury the knowledge. Newspapers were told by their tobacco advertisers that if they were to report one word on this finding, they’d find themselves subject to an advertising boycott. So the information was successfully suppressed.. and we didn’t find out until a generation later.
So we paid some costs, between 1938 and 1966. People didn’t know any better, so they smoked with abandon. Now, please, tell us of the benefits of that decision.
“What, exactly, would have been the cost of alerting the public back in 1938 that cigarette smokers had a strongly increased mortality, compared to nonsmokers?”
You need the government to do this?
Yes, we apparently DO need the government to do this. There was a study done of mortality, which found that smokers had drastically lowered survival rates. The government was not involved. And that study was suppressed by the advertisers, corporate tobacco interests. Again, the government was not involved.
This constituted a harm done to the American public. And since the magical workings of the free markets brought the harm about, we could have benefited from having a government interested enough to oppose those forces. And bring the findings of scientific fact to light in an act of public service.
We did in fact get that benefit… but not for another 28 years. This episode illustrates the need for forces countervailing to business in our society.
What are we supposed to think of people who do smoke, drink, eat junk food despite they know they are endangering their health and their life expectancy?
michael,
You willfully miss the point again and lamely try to defend yourself with matters of degree…I will try to help, although I am not sure you are worth the effort as you seem to be a hopeless case that cannot wrap his mind around some basic truths.
1) It is not government’s role to be our nanny. (Constitutionally and in principal)
2) Government commissars are just as easily corrupted (if not more so) as the media/corporations you decry
3) Regulation naturally leads to banning and often has unintended consequences.
4) Information is never perfect or perfectly disseminated by government or others.
5) Government “codes” do not stop all problems from happening and often have unintended consequences.
Regarding your smoking fetish…I will address you example.
The public was aware of some tobacco concerns much even before the arbitrary start of tobacco use you imply as 1938. I can’t answer the question you pose at the end because I have no idea who made “the decision” to erradicate all negative information from public view. Media was reporting negative findings and government was banning or placing “codes” on it well before this time and through this time. It goes further back, but I’ll start in the 20th with a few examples.
1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. “[O]nly Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books, were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity” (Dillow, 1981:10).
1907: REGULATION: WASHINGTON passes a law making it illegal to “manufacture, sell, exchange, barter, dispose of or give away any cigarettes, cigarette paper or cigarette wrappers.”
1916: Henry Ford publishes anti-cigarette pamphlet titled “The Case against the Little White Slaver”.
1918: Frederick J. Pack publishes “Tobaco and Human Efficiency,” the most comprehensive compilation of anti-cigarette opinion to date.
hxxp://www.tobacco.org/resources/history/Tobacco_History20-1.html
US Tobacco use per capita peaked in 1976 and continues to this day despite numerous health warnings. One recent article suggests that anti-smoking advertisements are actually enticing and increasing teen smoking.
1915: POETRY:
Tobacco is a dirty weed. I like it.
It satisfies no normal need. I like it.
It makes you thin, it makes you lean,
It takes the hair right off your bean.
It’s the worst darn stuff I’ve ever seen.
I like it.
–Graham Lee Hemminger, Penn State Froth, Tobacco
What some tobacco companies did was unfortunate and wrong. They were rightfully sued. There will always be bad actors. Individuals must use caution.
Government regulation was in place for deep oil wells (see false security problem) . The reason they were drilling in the deep to begin with was due to regulation not allowing drilling closer to or on shore (see environmentalists/ unitended consequences).
The government code saying that NutraSweet is safe does not guarantee it to be so. Some studies have indicated ill effects. I know that ingesting NutraSweet involves a risk…I drink about two cans of diet soda per day. I do not hold the government responsible for this.
You appear to have put a lot of effort into your response, so I’ll address the points you raise.
1) It is not government’s role to be our nanny. (Constitutionally and in principal)
It is precisely the government’s role to do what society’s other forces cannot or will not do, to preserve the public good. In fact, since you’ve made the assertion, read the Preamble to the US Constitution:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
2) Government commissars are just as easily corrupted (if not more so) as the media/corporations you decry
That’s another problem in need of a solution. Voter education and vigilance would go a long way toward correcting this sorry state. Or, we could just throw up our hands in despair.
3) Regulation naturally leads to banning and often has unintended consequences.
Well crafted rules make a good game. You can’t play football, or indeed any organized sport, without clear rules and good judges. Otherwise all you have is a riot.
And if a given rule has an unintended consequence, CHANGE IT! Are we all that ignorant?
4) Information is never perfect or perfectly disseminated by government or others.
This is just a statement that we can never enjoy perfect knowledge. So we make do with what we have. We know that.
What you seem to be saying though is that suppression of good information is a good thing. That it was right that we have kept from us the first scientific study establishing the link between smoking and increased mortality. You’re trying to make the case that LESS knowledge is good for us.
5) Government “codes” do not stop all problems from happening and often have unintended consequences.
This is the purest silliness. Unless government has the power and wisdom to stop ALL bad things from happening, it should never attempt to stop one single thing from happening.
Carry this over into your own life. If you can’t perfectly prevent cancer or heart disease, why should you ever wear a seat belt?
In summary, note that I’m not saying government should prohibit this and ban that. Unsafe practises that affect us all should be censured by the strictest of rules. That might well have prevented the problem we now see in the Gulf. Laxity and carelessness made it come to happen. But that’s not necessarily the fix for everything.
If I had my way, most recreational drugs would be legal. The harm they cause lies largely in their illegality, and clean marijuana, heroin and cocaine actually kill very few people. But alcohol and tobacco do, in the tens of thousands of us each year. So if I were to ban any product from the marketplace, it would probably be them.
Barring that step, at least informing people that studies have found them to adversely affect one’s health would be in order. Don’t you think?
“The public was aware of some tobacco concerns much even before the arbitrary start of tobacco use you imply as 1938. I can’t answer the question you pose at the end because I have no idea who made “the decision” to erradicate all negative information from public view.”
Your reply would have benefited from a more careful reading of what I had to say. Tobacco use, by westerners, began with Sir Walter Raleigh, centuries before. 1938 was the date the first major scientific study of the dangers of tobacco was released. Prior to that time, most information was anecdotal. And in fact most information stressed the immorality of smoking, or the stink, or the dirtiness of the habit. Not the adverse health aspect.
“In 1938, a study by Dr. Raymond Pearl of Johns Hopkins University showed that heavy cigarette smoking severely limited one’s life span. By 1941, this study was published only by the Washington Post and a bunch of country papers, which received no tobacco advertising.”
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Media+knew+in+the+1930s:+tobacco+causes+cancer.-a0163198648
“I can’t answer the question you pose at the end because I have no idea who made “the decision” to erradicate all negative information from public view.”
I mentioned it was the tobacco industry. No reason to dispute that. It didn’t come out of nowhere, nor did the government have a hand in it. Who else would have threatened to withdraw their ads?
“Government regulation was in place for deep oil wells (see false security problem).”
The rules were waived for all new drilling permits (as has been the custom in recent years). Enforcement has been nonexistent. And authority over the whole process has been given to the Coast Guard, who has proven themselves to be the handmaiden of the industry. (Appalling that they take their orders directly from BP.)
That’s not an argument that government should get out of the game. It’s an argument that government should get IN the game.
“The reason they were drilling in the deep to begin with was due to regulation not allowing drilling closer to or on shore (see environmentalists/ unitended consequences).”
Not that I’ve seen. They’re drilling deeper because all the shallow wells have become exhausted. We really are beginning to run out of new oil to drill. But way to go, pinning the blame on “environmentalists”.
michael, Alas, now I am sure…
Attempting to refute my case by misrepresentation, illogic, opinion, or blatant contradiction does not make it so. I will just leave you to your ignorance now, but I cannot resist a couple of parting shots so you may embarrass yourself less in the future…
“In summary, note that I’m not saying government should prohibit this and ban that. ”
“So if I were to ban any product from the marketplace, it would probably be them.” In all of your benevolent wisdom, I’m sure. So much for learning from the past…
“Too bad there wasn’t a safety code put in place for cigarette manufacture, back in 1938″ If a safety code is not a form of prohibition, I do not know what a safety code is.
Promoting the general welfare does not = nanny state (reading the rest of the Constitution / other framers writings, classic liberal thought would help you understand this and the principal itself) -enter sound of beating a dead horseAdieu
principle
BP bribed obama and lots of other politicians so that they could use a loophole. your “protection” works so well, at least for politicians and their pocketbooks.
http://fringeelements.tumblr.com/post/674052023/bp-was-granted-categorical-exclusion-from
Ooooooooo it’s annoying when something bad occurring under our current and long standing interventionist system of government is used as an argument against freedom/capitalism. Annoying, ignorant and idiotic.
Such a regulation and study would be unnecessary had previous regulation not banned on-shore drilling in the first place. Drillers use directional drilling. It’s far more expensive and dangerous to build an oil platform in the ocean than it is to build the same drilling station on land and drill under the surface out to the oil.
“This myth has been consistently debunked through real-world circumstances, yet it remains firmly fixed in the psychology of American workers and consumers. Coal miners go to work with an artificially bolstered confidence simply because there is a Mine Safety Administration monitoring their situation. Deep-sea oil workers have misguided confidence in their equipment because the derrick they are on recently won an award for safety from the federal government.”
Is this to say that the miners would want higher pay before going underground, and that oil drillers wouldn’t drill if they wern’t lulled into false sense of safety? Or is it saying that free market would make things safer?
The myth referring to people thinking, “government safety regulations keep us safe”.
UL may debunk the myth on a consumer product level where the free market puts convoluted bureaucratic gov’t safety agencies to shame, but how can you compare that to coal or deep sea oil drilling? These industries are large and hidden away from the public eye, with no regulation all coal must do is make the miners feel safe enough to go down there and get the coal out and make sure their profit margin is higher than the lawsuit cost when an accident happens.
I can’t see how internal safety regulators or even private safety evaluation companies can keep them in check or do a “better” (safer) job than government, for centuries miners went underground knowing it was dangerous, only after government stepped in did things improve.
Also, by my understanding, MSHA (mine safety and health admin) is self funded, therefore they write fines to pay their own salaries (… ? ) Only difference being they are backed by the Feds.
I’m semi new to the Austrian school of thought and I may have overlooked things but I like to think that I am beginning to understand it, this is just my pshycologically ingrained reaction I guess.
Thomas, as you pointed out, the problem also lies with the employees themselves knowing it was dangerous and yet doing it anyway. Yes, these were brave men who knowingly risked their lives to provide for themselves and their families, but, it’s just not worth it. It’s not fair to the man himself who thinks, wrongly, that he must risk his fate to an underground or watery grave. Off shore drilling at shallow water? That’s reasonable. At 5000 feet when never before tested? Big mistake. Same with mining, mining deaths are STILL happening after centuries of mining. Yes mining is safer, yet, it still kills in 2010 in the US. It will perhaps always be dangerous if it’s not mechanized. A miner should be sardonic enough to suspect that his safety is not ultimately cared for in the gov’t or company due to their impersonal structures. When a miner decides to become one they basically agreed that they MAY end up in a rocky grave. Like I said it’s just not worth it.
You say mining is “just not worth it” while typing at a computer made partly with metal (from a mine), sending your message over wires made of metal. I presume you travel in a conveyance made of metal, that you eat with metal utensils, eat food grown and transported with metal devices…
need I go on?
If it is not worth it then you should immediately stop making use of anything that was produced using any amount of mined material. After that the rest of the world can go on to make their own decisions about what is “worth it” or not with a little less interference.
If they went there willingly, knowing the dangers, what pray tell is the issue…?
I respect the Austrian school and individualist anarchism pretty highly, however I would like to know how building choices that can affect nearby property of others would be dealt with. For example bad electrical work can be dangerous for houses right around it.
Good question. Don’t hold your breath for answers.
According to libertarian doctrine, the neighbours would have no right to inspect the electrical work; hence, the neighbours might never know the work was shoddy until too late.
If the neighbours did manage to learn the work was shoddy, what then? It comes down to an interpretation of the term ‘threat’. Libertarian doctrine says it’s wrong to threaten others’ property. In this case, though, the owner hasn’t communicated a threat of intent. Rather, the neighbours have interpreted a danger to their property resulting from the shoddy work.
A narrow interpretation of ‘threat’ would mean that the neighbours would have to wait for an electrical fire, and then sue for damages if the fire spread. [Though of course the owner might be broke by then.] A wider interpretation might mean that the neighbours could require a bond from the owner or obtain an injunction requiring the fixing or dismantling of the electrical work.
The same type of question applies to BP, had the owners of the shoreline been private owners.
“Good question. Don’t hold your breath for answers.”
*yawn*
“According to libertarian doctrine, the neighbours would have no right to inspect the electrical work; hence, the neighbours might never know the work was shoddy until too late.”
Depends on the terms on which the property was purchased, they might mandate regular inspections (particularly if it’s a HOA)… the neighbours could always take the risk of “invading” to see whether there is a risk then incur damages, particularly if the risk were imagined. Or they could ask the owner if they would mind for them to call upon an inspector and have their house inspected… if the owner refused, they could then take the risk of finding out, and of course incurring full damages if they were wrong. If it’s a HoA there may be a requirement that houses be inspected. Oh wait, I thought you said not to hold one’s breath for answers here?
“In this case, though, the owner hasn’t communicated a threat of intent. Rather, the neighbours have interpreted a danger to their property resulting from the shoddy work.”
Indeed – thus they bear the risk that they may err, and that there is no ‘threat’ to them.
“A narrow interpretation of ‘threat’ would mean that the neighbours would have to wait for an electrical fire, and then sue for damages if the fire spread. [Though of course the owner might be broke by then.] A wider interpretation might mean that the neighbours could require a bond from the owner or obtain an injunction requiring the fixing or dismantling of the electrical work.”
That the owner is broke would be… immaterial. They’d still have to make good on the damages, e.g. having their wages garnered. But how ‘threat’ is to be interpreted is indeed for the courts involved to decide. Shock horror. You seem to be preoccupied with a caricature of libertarianism.
Seems you have some statist agenda to push here, though and long for mommy state to remain to protect you from those evil neighbours with their bad electrics. But that’s the cynic in me,
BTW, how would the state inspector justify their invasion of the person’s property? On what basis is their regular inspection of the facilities OK? They’re basically regularly violating the property rights of the owner, with impunity…
“Seems you have some statist agenda to push here.” — Nope.
“That the owner is broke would be… immaterial. They’d still have to make good on the damages…” — Immaterial if you as a neighbour die from the fire.
“Depends on the terms on which the property was purchased…” — Assuming the land was purchased. Maybe it was homesteaded.
“Or they could ask the owner if they would mind for them to call upon an inspector and have their house inspected… if the owner refused, they could then take the risk of finding out, and of course incurring full damages if they were wrong.” — Or get shot as trespassers before they discover anything.
“Immaterial if you as a neighbour die from the fire.”
No, immaterial as to whether you receive compensation or not. Don’t try this silly little leftist tactic of emotional appeals based on misconstruing what people say. Won’t work.
“Assuming the land was purchased. Maybe it was homesteaded.”
In which case, the person in question would a) require electricity b) road access, amongst other things. Either the electricity firm or road owner (perhaps an HOA) could mandate inspection before selling the goods. So… where’s the issue?
That is why they invented insurance.
For which you don’t need gov. imposed building codes. If the danger is real I gotta think the electrical supplier would mandate requirements/inspections to ensure the safety of it’s other customers before it connected your home to it’s grid. This is perfectly acceptable to libertarians.
Even if it didn’t, the irresponsible homeowner could be held liable to any damage they caused to neighbors. Just like if they detonated an explosive device in their backyard and broke neighbor’s windows.
The article is NOT an attack on the use of safety standards… this should be clear from it’s positive treatment of the UL, rather it’s an attack on gov. imposed safety standards, which are consistently arbitrary, counter to the needs and desires of the market participants, and generally motivated not by a desire to keep people safe, but to keep forcing them to by various over-priced products of dubious value.
Hope I answered fast enough for ABR… wouldn’t want him thinking that lousy understanding of libertarian theory is in any way complete or accurate.
Indeed, the electrical company could mandate that. Equally, insurance firms may decline to cover the house without an inspection of its safety (which could have a chain effect with regard to other firms), incentivising such an inspection. This in addition to all I mentioned.
BUT LIBERTARDS HAZ NO ANSWERS!1!1!
what if the property isn’t hooked up to a ‘grid’ but produces its own electricity? Yet somehow it may still pose a threat to neighbours. How do neighbours assess whether it poses a danger and what would they be able to do about it in a ‘libertarian’ society?
Some years back when building codes were adopted in my area the people pushing it actually had the nerve to state publicly they wanted to stop people from building their own home. The result was that whereas before someone could build his own home for let’s say 50 thousand dollars out of his pocket over 5 years, the contractor-built home would cost a hundred thousand and probably another hundred and fifty thousand in interest over thirty years. Another result is that we now have a great many more trailers than ever before; trailers which are far more subject to fire and wind than almost any house. I think besides the obvious robbery going on here there is another far more important point: that is they have no right to make any such law; it’s nothing more than a sneaky back door Stalinist property grab. In general the answers to government problems is always more restriction of the individual and more confiscation of property. The problems of freedom can always be solved by more freedom.
I think a prime example of this idea can be seen in the auto industry. After probably the late 50s to mid-60s all cars started looking the same and safety seemed to be in the driver’s seat. I was actually thinking awhile back that if we weren’t so focused on safety we’d have flying cars that ran on water or something. Hell, if our ancestors were as concerned with safety as we are I doubt they would have sailed across the ocean.
“I was actually thinking awhile back that if we weren’t so focused on safety we’d have flying cars that ran on water or something.”
LOL! Yeah right!
“Hell, if our ancestors were as concerned with safety as we are I doubt they would have sailed across the ocean.”
Who’s the ‘we’? Plenty of people still do stupid things and get themselves injured or killed. Then again the majority of people in ye olde times weren’t risk-takers and weren’t willing to sail across the oceann.
Not that it really matters since it looks as though you’ve just come here to stir up the shit but I was just pointing out that all of the money that went into r&d to conform to new safety regulations could have been spent on a number of different things, but wasn’t due to government intervention. Would it really have culminated in flying cars? Probably not since there are many other reasons prohibiting that…not the least of which is probably even more government intervention. Anywho I was having a little fun man. Lighten up.
People can go to and fro with helicopters if they want to hence ‘flying cars’ already exist in a sense.
regulation_litigation whirlpools
As a tradesman / journeyman carpenter of 36 years / I am new to the Mises site and and very impressed with how much I am learning and how much I already agree with – especially in this read.
I am one who uses power tools obviously and and disconcerted by the fact that the tools much like the buildings themselves will it seem at some point become unusable due to the assigned risk-taking via making something so safe that it is beyond practical.
Case in point. New tools seem to have switches FOR the switches to prevent accidental whatever. Besides the fact that many makers cannot spend enough time on ergonomics to get the hand fit good enough to prevent hand fatigue now pile on and add a switch release switch (yes thats right- a redundant switch) in some cases in a place you cannot reach but barely thus in essence making the tool all but unusable. I usually can figure a way to over-ride these switches but really my quandary for years is why do we never hear of the litigation that proceeds from hurting yourself because of the tool safety overload?
As one who has always believed that seat belt laws, hard hats, and many other laws were ridiculous in terms of reverse safety issues I can tell you that I will forever have a kinked up neck
that caused me seven horrendous sleepless years of pain from wearing a hard hat while working on the Monterey Bay Aquarium. It was a visual issue where the visor on the hat was always obscuring an obstruction just in front of my forehead and above. My accident was caused by this as I adjusted the height of my scissors lift did position properly do to inability to see where I was in relationship to a cement grade-beam. No- I was not in a hurry – no- I am not accident prone.
Table saws are also notorious in this regard and pretty much have their practical use cut in half by
being laden with safety devices.
I think being safe is important. But I see safety like I see God. I think fear in conjunction with common sense is the best safety tool and it should be used properly long before one picks up a tool. Fear leads to a wisdom that understands = the best good – for the most amount of people for the longest period of time. I suppose that is why I think the oil spill in the gulf is a farce and likely a spoof to create a spectacle to change the use of oil forever – getting people to forever forget this. When has someone come on to talk about the wonders of oil in both terms of machines, medicine, plastics, space exploration etc? The dangers are real for sure both in terms of environment and explosives but the balance is never to see the light of day.
Just my 2 cents..
Gary
I was just in a Kaiser Hospital the other week and noticed these guys walking around with hard hats. There was absolutely no construction going on! They were just wandering through the halls like everyone else. WTF is the point? They sure did look spiffy though.
I’ve been to jobs OUT IN THE OPEN where we were required to have hard hats. No building framing, so cranes, no overhead utilities, nothing, but we had to wear them nonetheless.
great post. social planners treat all as infants. my gas lighter for the stove has two safety locks as well as the trigger. i glue the child-locks “on” just so as to make it workable.
Chile and Haiti suffered both earthquakes (respective magnitudes 8.8 and 7). Guess which suffered less? Guess which had better building codes?
A code telling you how green your grass should be goes to far, but some codes do seem necessary. Is the answer still that the market would have taken care of this?
Given enough time to learn_Yes! And for those who can’t or won’t learn_ Who cares? Why should I have to live like a prisoner because some idiot can’t or won’t learn?
Yes. The problem with Haiti is an economy that is wrecked (you can read articles about the reasons for this plenty of places). They don’t have the money to build good houses, regardless of the standards placed on them. If they were to try to meet the standards we have they wouldn’t build any houses at all.
What country, Chile or Haiti has a higher standard of living allowing them to have better materials, better construction techniques, actual architects and engineers to do designs based on those Codes?
Simple Hazlitt and seeing the bigger picture…
yes…but we’ve never had a free market and it is already at least 100 years behind the eight ball.
” What if the company is operating in a rural area and makes a cost analysis and determines that the cost of a half dozen lives in compensation is less than the cost to avoid contamination? Again, how do you price someones suffering?”
We might want to ask one of the biggest polluters and warmongers on the planet — the US Government.
By the way, the government bureaucrats sitting in publically funded office cubicles are constantly determining how much loss of life is okay. Bumper impact standards; crash resistance standards; the safety (or lack thereof) on those big yellow transport deathtraps the kids use to go to their schools each morning…
Since the busy-body public servants can’t eliminate all risk, then it follows that they accept some. And I thought it was just evil corporations that put profits (or power) before people. Feh.
Government regulation, even if issued with the best intentions, as that of safety, is a form of socialism. What is the use of having the property of something if what one can do with it strickly determined by law.
Quote from th article: “One can’t anticipate what the dangers of something will be until after an accident has occurred.”
I had hopes for reading something worthwhile, but that’s just one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read. We can’t anticipate the dangers until after an accident? So people have no prior knowledge of gravity or flamability or corrosivity or any of the many other hazardous properties of materials or situations or processes? We’re completely incapable of foreseeing danger until after it occurs? Prefacing your article with something so blatently ignorant taints your whole point.
When one lives in freedom with the unfettered ability to both enjoy the consequences of his actions and to suffer the same, he learns_one way or the other if he is to survive_ to act prudently and think ahead. I grew up in a rural environment with far more freedom than most people even then enjoyed; for we kids everyday life was doing endless things which the world now considers so horribly dangerous they must be intensely regulated or forbidden. And as amazing as it sounds none of us ever got seriously injured. All the regulation today not only robs us of our property and freedom, it also robs us of the opportunity to learn to care for ourselves.
It also robs us the ability to evolve…who knows… if we really had a truly free market in the construction industry where workers were allowed to take risks, the typical construction worker might, say…over 1000 years have evolved and branched off from the rest of the human population with a very highly specialised skillset designed specifically for construction. E.g. the ability to hammer nails with his own bare hands and chisel wood with his teeth…haha….chuck norris would be proud!
Quote from Lee: “When one lives in freedom with the unfettered ability to both enjoy the consequences of his actions and to suffer the same, he learns_one way or the other if he is to survive_ to act prudently and think ahead.”
Safety is just a measure of acceptable risk. It’s a value judgment, and as with all value judgments, it is subjective. Your point is completely true, and in a free society, completely appropriate. Government set standards are first corrupted by the political process and then an anchor holding back innovation. They are an object lesson on how a one-size-fits-all solution rarely fits anybody.
My point was that the idea that we cannot anticipate risks and quantify them subjectively until we actually experience a failure (i.e., an accident) is simply wrong. The quantification of the risks may end up being wrong (and often is), but that doesn’t mean we can’t anticipate them before a failure occurs.
I would agree that the phrase was over-simplified and was under developed in my piece. The idea is that while you can anticipate with the best knowledge all things that are known, the essence of innovation is that risks are inherent and the results, both positive and negative cannot always be fully extrapolated. Breakthroughs in ideas and technology come without all answers given.
The issue that I have is that code writing is reactive. It is only as good as “the last accident” so to speak. In my industry the writing of codes is related to anecdotal evidence that is not scientific in nature. Your example of gravity is over simplified in the case of writing codes because gravity is a natural law. No code is quantifiable as to the direct correlation between injury and code revisions and is entirely subjective. It is neither based on natural law or scientific evidence. What must be observed is that codes are a political tool not simply written for the betterment of mankind. All law is political in its nature. Some laws are more reconcilable than others but we should not be so naive as to think that simply because it is related to safety that this set of codes would not be used for political outcome. Private certification is a market driven outcome as in the case of the UL and as such has different motivations associated with it. Codified law is usually accompanied by penalty. Unfortunately when it is in the hands of governments it usually is at the threat of force and is always targeted at the liberty of the individual, even if it is disguised in populism. If we are true to natural law then we must acknowledge that not all things in living will have a satisfactory outcome. If that is true, then we cannot place an entity in the role of solving the issues of personal responsibility or averting the risks of the human experience.
We have become so accustomed to seeing government intervention in the role of safety that we have abdicated our role as humans in natures law. We will be eternally disappointed in the outcome if we expect a benevolent government to fill the monitoring role we should be taking ourselves. Beyond our disappointment we will lose liberty which has far greater detriment than being disappointed about government failure.
Thanks to all who have read the piece and commented. I appreciate the thought that has gone into the discussion here.
“warning: plastic bags can cause suffocation”
god bless nanny.
Comments on this entry are closed.