What is the libertarian position(s) on things like asbestos?

[Sentient Void]

The best explanation I can come up with is that lobbying wouldn't be a problem under a free market - because there'd be nothing to lobby for (and lobby groups have been involved with asbestos use and government). there's no other way to truly get rid of lobby groups, apart from complete govt control of economy and personal lives.

Also, asbestos was discovered to be harmful overwhelmingly by private individuals, doctors, and insurance companies in the early part of the 20th century - *not* governments. As a matter of fact, lobby groups pressure governments all over the world to subsidize and hire/use asbestos products/companies for public contracts. The US is a great example, particularly during WWII with ship building. Sure, some nasty corporations (which are protected by limited liability, a govt mandate and not a free-market possibility) fought against this getting out - and they used lobby groups to enlist the help of government to keep it quiet. Just as they always do.

I was asked about asbestos and how it took the government to ban it by a progressive and this is what I came up with. But does anyone else have anything better for future reference?

[Zippyjuan]

NO regulations- business can kill you anyway they see fit. Unless you sue them. But without a law, what basis would you sue them on?

[Elwar]

We're against it.

[Elwar]

education is actually the best thing in such a case...


Just like how those energy saver light bulbs are unhealthy, just do the research and get it out there.

[YumYum]

education is actually the best thing in such a case...


Just like how those energy saver light bulbs are unhealthy, just do the research and get it out there.

I didn't hear anything about that. Interesting. No wonder I feel like crap!:confused:

[ChaosControl]

I'm curious as to why it matters what the "libertarian" position matters.
What is YOUR position?

Personally I think there is nothing wrong with banning a very dangerous thing from being used.

[Sentient Void]

I'm curious as to why it matters what the "libertarian" position matters.
What is YOUR position?

Personally I think there is nothing wrong with banning a very dangerous thing from being used.

You're missing my point. Perhaps my wording is doing me a disservice here. I am obviously against it, and wouldn't use it myself. I believe education and being a smart consumer is important, in any and all cases. I also acknowledge that government is usually behind the curve anyways in 'banning' things and 'regulating' things, when there is a market response anyways, and may (read: usually) lead to market distortions (the EPA in trying to ban asbestos for example offered up alternatives that could have potentially been even LESS safe). I also acknowledge that regulatory capture and lobby groups are a problem when it comes to things like this, but it seems - at least on the surface, that banning it *may* have helped - though I am very skeptical.

Essentially, I'm looking for more ammo from other, perhaps more informed, individuals as to how the 'situation' with asbestos was either made worse by government or got in the way of the market naturally taking precautions against it, and how the market would take care of such issues, or what the market was already doing against asbestos as the government (perhaps behind the curve, as usual) came in and banned it.

I acknowledge that being a 'libertarian' still offers a wide swath of interpretation as to what the role of government is, even though we all generally agree on mostly limiting it as much as possible.

[Zippyjuan]

It is impossible for the consumer to be knowledgable about all products. They have to rely on somebody to check into these things for them and remove harmful things before they get to the market.

"You should have known. We had the papers filed in a cabinet in the basement of our Siberian branch. They are there for anybody to view on odd numbered Fridays during months beginning with "D" between 12:01 and 12:02am."

Further reporting requirements would have imposed undue burdens on our business.

[heavenlyboy34]

It is impossible for the consumer to be knowledgable about all products. They have to rely on somebody to check into these things for them and remove harmful things before they get to the market.

"You should have known. We had the papers filed in a cabinet in the basement of our Siberian branch. They are there for anybody to view on odd numbered Fridays during months beginning with "D" between 12:01 and 12:02am."

Further reporting requirements would have imposed undue burdens on our business.


Indeed. Groups like Underwriters Laboritories would serve this function in a stateless society.

[GunnyFreedom]

I believe that the concept of limited liability is what kept asbestos longer than it should have been prior to the government ban. If the government did not limit the liability on asbestos lawsuits, then companies would have had a choice of using something else or going out of business. Legal insurance companies would have jacked up premiums for businesses using asbestos one hundredfold until they simply could not afford to use it.

It was governmental limits on liability (the same thing that made the BP oil spill worse than it should have been) that kept asbestos around a lot longer than it would have in a true free market.

Thus, it was actually government regulation that led to more people getting sick from asbestos than would have been the case if not for liability caps issued by government, which would not have existed in a free market.

[hugolp]

The money that the government uses to have the consumer protection agencies and the rest would be better used to create voluntary consumer protection institutions what would compete to offer the best advice to consumers. Unlike one central government institution that is easily lobbied by big bussiness.