I guess that the answer is similar to other environmental issues, but I need some points to refute this. European Union is/has been very active in regulating stupid things such as the age of using firecrackers or the maximum number of bacteria in cheese.
Mercury ban on measuring instruments for domestic use is being applied recently. It is true that mercury is dangerous, Isaac Newton learned that. Of course, one is -should- perfectly allowed to drink mercury, it is his/her problem. But the problem is that it is especially dangerous in water for drinking use. Not too much doubt about it.
EU, “caring about their citizens”, has banned mercury in domestic thermometer. Obviously this law will raise the price of other systems. Let’s assume that mercury is cheap, and let’s assume that it is true that is dangerous, and let’s assume that it is true that many people throw these thermometers without caring about the potential damage.
OK, then damage is made, and obviously it is impossible to track who did it.
Of course from a libertarian point of view that law is absurd. For the same reason even butter could be forbidden. But in the case of mercury everybody agrees that it was time, even nobody really realized that until the EU raise the issue.
I would like you to help me to give sound explanations to some EU fans that think that finally they have found the proof that I am wrong blaming the EU for all nonsense regulation.
That is why I think it’s nonsense. But the point I am finding difficult to explain is how private property helps as in this case it is virtually impossible to find who is responsible for the damage
Well, it is not the ban of a metal, it is the ban of a metal for domestic use.
OK, as ProudCapitalist says crime is defined as actions. Let’s imagine that I collect mercury thermometers because I am a hypochondriac who wants to be sure that I will not run out of thermometers. But one day I realize that I don’t need it anymore and throw the thermometers to the toilet. This is the action.
Mercury will enter into the drinking water sooner or later. And likely some people will suffer some mercury-related illnesses. It is virtually impossible that anybody can track that I was the one commiting the crime. It is a different issue than having a factory throwing pollution to a river, it is trackable, difficult but possible, it isn’t in the case of mercury.
Then, our dear EU in its role as father/mother takes a short cut and bans mercury thermometer, problem solved according to the burocrats.
Of course, I feel that in one way or another, if the risk is high, there will be some free market solutions, no idea what. But in a case so straightforward, how to explain that our potential market solution is better than the easy government solution?
And with identical logic to yours, assume that I quickly stuff a few kilograms of butter down your throat, and that it is impossible to find out that this caused you death, because I thereafter melt your body with acids. Therefor butter “for domestic uses” must be illegalized. (Oh no, that’d upset farmers, who is the corrupt special interest responsible for why the EU exists in the first place, so let’s just illegalize modern technologies and keep subsidizing medieval farming which devastates seas and emitts more greenhouse gases than all cars in Europe, while producing foods far more expensive than third world countries which are notoriously boycotted by the EU).
Or it would be catched by the purifying system of the waste water handling company. It’s not like you flush your toilett on you neighbours garden, or is it in you “scenario”? It seems to me as if handling of toxic waste would be a kind of service which would be one of the few distinct ways which companies in that business could differentiate themselves and gain competitive advantages. Can you prove that it is better to draconically illegalize all use of mercury, than to handle it according to traditional property laws prohibiting only HARMFUL uses of any substance or object? How have the EU bureaucrats managed to re-invent justice in a new better way?
How many have died through mercury poisoning due to hypocondriacs throwing their vast collection of old fashioned thermometers in the toilet? How important is your “problem” really? Who’s really the “hypocondriac” here???
If people got mercury poisoning from drinking bottled water the first step would be to sue the manufacturer, right? The only reason this is not so with tap water is because it is produced by the government.
Contamination is indeed a serious risk for tap water, the solution for this is for tap water to be provided by market entities.
Any business would ensure that water was free of poisons. While they might regulate what wastes are allowed to be put down the drain, its inconceivable that their strategy would be to ban mercury thermometers from customer’s homes. And their strategy to ensure safe water would involve more than simply hoping that no one ever puts any contraband down the drain.
If the EU were really concerned with the quality of water they would be provide safe water, instead of looking for scape goats.
Good point, there will be all kind of incentive for water suppliers to solve the problem. That is what I didn’t see, that there is an intermediary responsible for the quality of the product.
You don’t have to persuade me, think that what I want is to deal with interventionist arguments in a proper and sound way. I know that hypochondriasis is a huge government illness, but systematically denying that there is any danger will not help us in trying to spread our ideas.
It is not enough to be intelligent, we should be smart. We cannot focus our explanations in refusing any hypothesis, sometimes those hypothesis would be bullet proof -sometimes obviusly not. We have two options, a) assume that socialism is an unavoidable evil and don’t bother about refuting anything, after all, it is not our fault that the World is full of dumb sheep or b) try to put ourselves in those sheep’s shoes, trying to find the way to make them think, not just because we are more intelligent but because our arguments deal with the problem.
Yes, this is the kind of arguments I was looking for.
Another argument could be that proper free-market law will appear. When looking for a new house, water supply is key. Areas with reputation for bad quality water will be less attractive. Probably, clean areas will have some kind of regulation -same as when you buy a flight ticket you have the right to travel in it, but not the right to carry any inflammable liquid.