Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site acf4.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!acf4!mms1646
From: mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: The libertarian solution to probs. of occup. safety
Message-ID: <1340175@acf4.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Jun-85 00:34:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: acf4.1340175
Posted: Fri Jun  7 00:34:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Jun-85 02:14:44 EDT
References: <7505@ucbvax.ARPA>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 54

>/* robg@mmintl.UUCP (Robert Goldman) / 11:14 am  Jun  5, 1985 */

>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.

Not a cut of the law suits, but a cut of the profits from the sale of the
product.  And of course, if they sell incorrect information, they will
be liable as in the case of selling any faulty product.

Alternatively, they can be independent companies selling their
information.  The profit motive would provide an incentive for them
to be accurate (what's the incentive for governement to be accurate).
Also, it is possible that such an industry would develop on more than
one level, so that there might be firms publishing ratings of
firms that sell product and occupational safety information.

>  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);

Are gov't. scientists not now advocates for parties, e.g., the EPA.

>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).

If the studies are too expensive for the market to support them then
perhaps those who wish to use a product will have to make a decision
regarding whether or not they are willing to take the chance.

>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).

There is no doubt that some damage cannot be compensated for by any amount
of money.  However, the question is how to best avoid such damages without
strangling the economy.

>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.

If employers tell their employees that a substance is not dangerous
and it is, then they are responsible for any damages that result.
If they tell their employees that they don't know whether or not the
substance is harmful, it will be up to the individual employee to
decide whether to take the risk, or, perhaps, get fired.

>						Robert Goldman

			Mike Sykora