Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!robg
From: robg@mmintl.UUCP (Robert Goldman)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: The libertarian solution to probs. of occup. safety
Message-ID: <440@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 11:14:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmintl.440
Posted: Wed Jun  5 11:14:50 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Jun-85 01:22:57 EDT
References: <466@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>, <7505@ucbvax.ARPA>
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 44


	In his article (second ref.) Barry Fagin suggests that the libertation
solution to problems of occupational safety is an expansion of the current
negligence laws.  I understand that to mean:  If someone shoves asbestos
into your lungs, sue them.
	I'm afraid that contrary to his advertisement, this is a typical
libertarian "simple solution."  There are a number of things to be taken
into account in this discussion that have not been addressed by this
solution:

1.  In Libertaria, who is going to do the research to determine which
chemicals, etc. are dangerous?  Would it be in the interests of anyone but
the government?
	One might suggest freelance firms that get a cut of the returns from
suits.  This `free market' solution has two flaws:  1)  it would make
scientists into the position of advocates for parties, damaging science's
pursuit of truth (c.f., lawyers' pursuit of truth, the Tobacco Institute);
2) It is unlikely that this free market method could support the kind of
long duration studies necessary in some cases (esp. detailed investigation
of genetic damage).

2.  If we stuck to negligence suits, we would lose the protection of
substance screening -- the kind of protection that saved the United States
from the thalidomide nightmare.

3.  It is my personal belief that some situations cannot be adequately
compensated by ANY amount of money.  E.g., the above-mentioned thalidomide
children, people who are killed in industrial accidents (their families need
the money, but it doesn't do the actual victims any good).

4.  It seems to me that it would be difficult to prove someone negligent for
not protecting his/her employees from a substance not known to be harmful.
This is related to point #2, and suggests (but does not prove) that in
Libertaria, each new generation would be unwitting guinea pigs for substance
x, and would not be eligible for compensation since "Substance x was not
known to be dangerous when we started using it in our plant.  Of course, now
that we see that all your children have been born with fins and gills, we'll
discontinue its use, but you can't expect US to accept responsibility. . ."

	Any answers?

						Robert Goldman
						MultiMate International
opinions above entirely my own.