From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Raving a bit, aren't we?
Date: 12 Oct 1992 05:16:38 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct9.223219.4668@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

I still don't understand the Libertarian adoration of the free market
coupled with their contempt for the agents who will
(supposedly) make it work:
>	The people who are being taxed to death call for more government.  They
>don't know any better.

Somehow this reminds me of the disparity between the Communists' claim
to be the vanguard of the dictatorship of the proletariat with the
actual fact that they were the dictatorship of themselves. The
Libertarians' humility in this matter can be detected from Stupendous's
login.

Moving from the philosophical to the specific:
>	Notice that they're [businesses] not opposed
>to workplace safety (after all, dead workers don't produce very much), just
>against travesties like OSHA.

No, I didn't notice that, because your economics here are faulty. If
dead low-paid *easily-replaced* workers in a dangerous plant (mine, etc.)
were more productive and profitable before dying
than live workers in a safe and more costly plant,
the dangerous plant is "better". I asked you to post five pre-OSHA
workplace safety organizations organized by business or even anyone
else, and to date you have posted none. (You posted a smart-aleck
claim that since there were no PCs in the 1960s, there didn't have to be
watchdogs before OSHA-- a total non sequitur.)
So how interested was business
in workplace safety? How interested were the owners of the (pre-OSHA)
Triangle Shirtwaist Factory? How interested were the owners of the coal
mines, also pre-OSHA?

One of the major complaints against the Reagan-era OSHA was that
they had begun a cost/benefit analysis of new safety regs in which the
value of a common laborer's life was set at $1 million. In fairness,
OSHA denied it.

>	Consumer's Union does product analysis.  Some of that is safety, but
>since OSHA exists, it is used as a scapegoat/target of funds.  The government
>controls it, so any effort to set up "Plant Inspectors R Us" would most likely
>be met with federal agents and arrest warrants for harrasment.

Paranoid fantasy. You have been unable to name one pre-OSHA watchdog
group, much less a post-OSHA watchdog group which has been thrown out of
business on any such basis. Do you know that Kosher food inspectors are
permitted in food plants on top of Government inspectors? So Kosher meat
companies say exactly:

>	Whether or not plants said "yeah, great idea, I can now advertise
>'Passes Plant Inspectors R Us most stringent tests!'.

for the benefit of Jews and Muslims who observe dietary laws.

The closest you came to an example was the (unsupported, uncited)
anecdote:

>	Tell you what, try to set up a service that takes home drunk people for
>free from bars.  Now make sure you have bail money.  (Yes, the government says
>that's illegal.)

I guess for running an unlicensed, uninsured taxi service. It's hardly
government inspectors! Next thing you'll blame bad working conditions
in chicken plants on the Post Office monopoly.

>	OSAH is frequently bought off, or runs inadequate inspections.  They're
>not accountable to anyone except themselves.  One or two people get fired, and
>it's back to standard operating procedures.

The same is often alleged of regular police. Do you support their
abolition, too?

And as another tip, check out the posting of Mr. Sand[?]. See how he cites
specific articles and facts to rebut my points? As it happens, I'm
totally unimpressed with Aaron Wildavsky's political views, so I'm
skeptical of his economics, but if I want to establish my
claim about falling worker injury rates after OSHA, I'm going to have to
go to the library, either to do research on original sources or to find
economists who agree with ME.

In contrast, your posts are full of urban legends and allegations about
business behavior which are inconsistent with well-known
facts of pre-regulation days.

Mr. Sand is also more polite.

andy