According to a statist:
hXXp://mugsysrapsheet.com/2010/04/07/massey-mine-disaster-debunks-self-regulating-free-market-myth/
Can someone counter the claims that
Well, first of all, this was the big-government, lots-of-regulation case, not the free market case. There is no free market in mining. So, if anything, this case could be used as an indictment of government regulation.
Second, in a free market (and under today’s big regulations), big business has no incentive to skirt safety or anything like that. The company under consideration is going to suffer incredibly for their role in this incident.
Third, no matter how much you try, mines are dangerous. Period. That’s the nature of the beast.
Fourth, mine safety can increase far more through the market. In a better economy (with less government), jobs are aplenty and workers have more leverage because they can decide to join any number of companies. Companies have to bid up the price of workers and compete with each other for labor. One of the ways the companies would compete is by having a good safety record and taking good safety precautions. Making companies accountable to real human beings with their lives at stake will push standards up far more than being accountable to bureaucrats who don’t risk their lives. In fact, with the government regulation, workers may falsely assume that all mines are safe, or that all mines have similar safety. This is the moral hazard that government regulation encourages.
The bottom line is that in a free market, people can make transactions with others. Some of those transactions will involve people putting themselves in dangerous positions because they want to get paid. I still won’t choose to jail either of them for engaging in these transactions. However, if I had money to burn, I may contribute to a voluntary service that provides services equivalent to government regulation (without the coercion).
The statist wants a particular service (even more government regulations). But he doesn’t want to pay for it. He wants YOU to pay for it. And if you don’t, he’ll have you put in jail. Some compassion.
Straw man.
To answer your question, the political economy of the USA IS NOT A FREE MARKET. I would classify it as mostly Fascist and becoming more Fascist daily. So the more regulations you pile onto businesses and other not so free individuals only makes the paper work burden greater and has no real value. No mine can be perfectly safe, no automobile can be perfectly safe, no aircraft can be perfectly safe, etc. All activities have risk. The most dangerous things people do are going to the bathroom and riding in an automobile. The volumes of regulations have not changed that fact.
As to the example of the mine accident: I tire of mine accidents being used as examples for the necessity of government regulation intruding into the most intimate decisions people make because “Big Corporations” hate their customers and really hate their employees.
First, corporations are government creations that exist to provide legal protection to owners of corporations from having full liability for the actions of the officers of the corporation. Without this government protection, businesses would be much more careful about how they behave as they would face the full liability for their actions.
Second, just because some lawmaker or regulator writes something down on paper does not make working environments safe. Managers and employees working together make things safe. And even if things are safe, there are always mistakes as people are human. Equipment may have a faulty design, faulty materials, or maybe the users are just dumb or misunderstand their surroundings. No amount of legislation or regulation can stop that.
The Nirvana fallacy. Big times!
Mines are regulated. If this is a systemic failure, then it is a failure of the government regulators. In upside-down-world, where statists live, failling agencies are to be entrusted with greater powers and rewarded with larger budgets and expanded oversight responsibilities. In the real world, organizations which fail to fulfill their charter usually go bankrupt either due to lack of customers, lawsuits or both.
Clayton -
QFT
I heard that in response to the last WV mine accident there were regulations added to mandate “wireless communications devices” and some sort of emergency chambers nearby wherever people are working. So, I guess Washington bureaucrats can’t save everyone setting off explosives underground.
No, but they sure can Fuck it up!!! The regulations makes everybody lower their guards. The competitive advantage for a company that has a better safety record is gradually reduced until it is completely diminished. The incentive to do more then the bare minimum mandated by government is gone. It’s like the airline industry. Everybody is considered to be on the same plane field in terms of safety. Innovation in safety then stagnates or even deteriorates.
As has been said, there is not a laissez faire mining industry, so this accident cannot be put at the foot of the free market.
Exactly, and the problem is that a lot of people put more value on intentions than outcome. It doesn’t matter that a corporation’s mean motivation to make money; what matters is the outcome.
Disasters will happen, incompetent companies will exist, and dishonest bosses and workers will exist in both a mixed economy and free market. The difference is that in a free market. Nobody who advocates an acap/ free market society believes that it would be perfect.
The argument goes that corporations can trump the interests of individuals because they are so much bigger
If individuals are concerned for their health and safety, they ought to pool their resources into an insurance pool and (probably) choose someone to be the account’s financial planner: Entrusted with the funds, but obligated to pay out under certain contractually binding situations.
The financial planner will realize that the more people who get hurt, the more s/he will have to pay out, and maybe eventually go broke. In anticipation of this, the insurance planner will take preemptive action against likely causes of harm. Offer financial incentives to mining companies to be more safety conscious. Offer bonuses to workers who work in less dangerous jobs and forcing hazardous employers to bid higher for workers (or) reduce their liabilites.
Insurance is supposed to solve a lot of problems in the free market, particularly collective action ones. Its one of the ways that rothbard thought we could provide for large-scale defense.
Life becomes problematic when liberals think all insurance companies are evil. They don’t realize that if the barriers to entry were stripped, I could easily start my own insurance plan with friends/family/coworkers if I didn’t like any of the ones available on the market. They basically claim you can’t trust rich greedy capitalists. But, if anyone can enter the market, either everyone is greedy, or the greedy capitalists have no particular leverage on us.
Derp.
Government owns the roads. Government doesn’t care if people wreck up the place. A private owner would. They would have specifications about which cars are/aren’t allowed on the road based off the liabilities they represented.
double derp!
Well, if it’s cheaper, why not? Honestly.
Corporations are by no means benevolent, but anyone that thinks the government is needs to open a book.
What a bunch of senseless zombies cries fault for a single mine accident and refuses to speak a word of the warlike death toll reaped on public roads and highways in car accidents alone. I see evolution has still a long way to go…
This is the only sensible reply so far.