You're assuming that government regulation solves all these problems better than a free market system would. Let's see:
I don't have to worry about my next door neighbor starting a pig farm.
Do you live in a covenant community? I do, which means it isn't government regulations that are stopping my next door neighbor from starting a pig farm, but the voluntarily adopted by-laws of the community, funded by the dues paid by homeowners. Do you have any evidence that homeowners in such communities pay more for the same benefits, on average, than homeowners in towns and cities where the local government's zoning laws are the applicable regulations?
I rode an elevator today without worrying about falling to my death.
How much did you pay in taxes for that assurance? How much would you have paid in a free market where private insurance companies enforced safety regulations--i.e., the inspection certificate inside the elevator was issued by an inspector hired by the insurance company that had liability for any injuries caused by a defect in the elevator, rather than an inspector hired by the government? Do you have any evidence that the latter cost would be higher than the former for the same benefit?
No one is spraying dioxin as a sealant on the streets in my area because it was the cheap option.
I didn't know dioxin was even an option for street sealing, but let's assume you meant "some harmful substance". Once again, you're paying taxes for this benefit; do you have any evidence that you're getting the benefit more cheaply than you would in a free market system where roads were privately owned, and the owners were liable for damages to neighboring property owners, just as I would be liable if I dumped toxic waste on your lawn?
when regulation works, you don't have to think about it.
Yep, right up until it stops working catastrophically. Ask the residents of Gulf coast communities how well government regulation prevented them from suffering serious damage as a result of the Deepwater Horizon spill. In a free market, BP could not have just gone and started drilling with a nudge-nudge wink-wink from Federal regulators who had no real stake in the outcome and who made no serious effort to sanity check what they were doing; they would have had to convince the Gulf residents themselves, directly, that the risks of drilling were worth the benefits.
>I do, which means it isn't government regulations that are stopping my next door neighbor from starting a pig farm, but the voluntarily adopted by-laws of the community, funded by the dues paid by homeowners. Do you have any evidence that homeowners in such communities pay more for the same benefits, on average, than homeowners in towns and cities where the local government's zoning laws are the applicable regulations?
That depends, what are your fees and what are the powers of your HOA? Seems a bit onerous to have to do a deep dive into a contract that covers everything that zoning laws and the like would have to cover just to see if that area is suitable to my needs.
>How much would you have paid in a free market where the inspection certificate inside the elevator was issued by an inspector hired by the insurance company that had liability for any injuries caused by a defect in the elevator...
And how do I check if that insurance company is legitimate every time I decide to use an elevator? In the case that they are legitimate how do I know they are not making actuarial judgement on the relative value of the human lives when it comes to inspection resources? IOW if I am visiting a building in a lower class neighborhoods, do I assume that fewer resources have been spent making sure the equipment in the area is safe?
>I didn't know dioxin was even an option for street sealing...
Do you think Russell Bliss, the waste hauler that was hired to seal the town's streets, had enough money or enough liability coverage to reimburse the entire town which had to be abandoned? Or should we just trust in market forces to keep such a short sighted massively destructive incident from occurring again...I mean, who is going to hire that guy for another sealant job? Problem solved, right?
The fact is that Libertarian dogma ignores reality on several fronts. One, it assumes near perfect information...a goal made even more impossible to reach than it is already considering the Cambrian explosion of agreements and jurisdictions that must be considered in every possible interaction between humans or between humans and anything constructed by humans where laws and regulations are thrown out of the window in favor of market interatcions. The second unrealistic assumption is that everyone has the capacity to cause only enough harm for themselves and their insurance to pay for. The third fantasy is that all harm that is caused by humans can be attributable to a bad actor after the fact so that the market can punish them appropriately...
The reality is that is is far easier and cheaper to allow the wisdom of those who came before stop problems before they start in the form of laws and regulations that supersede and outlast any ephemeral market dynamic or the memory of the negative consequences of some of those interactions.
Will there be failures? Sure. Previous failures is how we ended up with the laws and regulations we have now. It is our job to constructively add to that body of wisdom. Will some outlast their usefulness? Absolutely. We must be vigilant and change laws and regulations as necessary. But for the vast majority we can leave well enough alone.
Seems a bit onerous to have to do a deep dive into a contract that covers everything that zoning laws and the like would have to cover just to see if that area is suitable to my needs.
You would have to do the same with the zoning laws to know whether they are really meeting your needs, not to mention whether they are effectively enforced. For example, there is an industrial building within earshot of our house that likes to switch out trash dumpsters at 5 in the morning, when my wife and I would greatly prefer to be asleep. We complained to the HOA, but since the industrial building is not on land owned by the community, they can't do anything directly; all they can do is appeal to the county government to enforce its zoning ordinance, which supposedly prohibits such activities within a certain distance of residences. Did the county actually do anything about it? Hollow laugh.
how do I check if that insurance company is legitimate every time I decide to use an elevator?
How do you know the government inspector is legitimate?
Neither did the residents of Times Beach, Missouri.
And who hired the waste hauler there? The city government.
it is far easier and cheaper to allow the wisdom of those who came before stop problems before they start in the form of laws and regulations
I'm sympathetic to this argument. However, I don't see governments actually doing this. I see the "wisdom of those who came before" embodied, not in governments, but in social structures and organizations that people create and join voluntarily. For example, whatever your opinion might be about religion as a belief system, churches typically do far more to help the needy than governments do.
> I see the "wisdom of those who came before" embodied, not in governments, but in social structures and organizations that people create and join voluntarily
I see it in both. Though I would be willing to entertain the idea that people, at the age of majority or at certain milestone ages throughout their life, sign a 'declaration of civil life' or some such that basically says "Yes, I am aware of the laws and mores that cover my area and I agree to be a good citizen and, in return, I expect to have a voice in that governance."
Those that don't sign can move to a zone with laws they do agree with or a Christiania type 'freezone' where people can live free of social agreements that they would have otherwise inherited by accident of birth.
I support this because there has not really been a government free zone in any stable sense since before the written word. I'd be curious how it actually plays out.
I don't have to worry about my next door neighbor starting a pig farm.
Do you live in a covenant community? I do, which means it isn't government regulations that are stopping my next door neighbor from starting a pig farm, but the voluntarily adopted by-laws of the community, funded by the dues paid by homeowners. Do you have any evidence that homeowners in such communities pay more for the same benefits, on average, than homeowners in towns and cities where the local government's zoning laws are the applicable regulations?
I rode an elevator today without worrying about falling to my death.
How much did you pay in taxes for that assurance? How much would you have paid in a free market where private insurance companies enforced safety regulations--i.e., the inspection certificate inside the elevator was issued by an inspector hired by the insurance company that had liability for any injuries caused by a defect in the elevator, rather than an inspector hired by the government? Do you have any evidence that the latter cost would be higher than the former for the same benefit?
No one is spraying dioxin as a sealant on the streets in my area because it was the cheap option.
I didn't know dioxin was even an option for street sealing, but let's assume you meant "some harmful substance". Once again, you're paying taxes for this benefit; do you have any evidence that you're getting the benefit more cheaply than you would in a free market system where roads were privately owned, and the owners were liable for damages to neighboring property owners, just as I would be liable if I dumped toxic waste on your lawn?
when regulation works, you don't have to think about it.
Yep, right up until it stops working catastrophically. Ask the residents of Gulf coast communities how well government regulation prevented them from suffering serious damage as a result of the Deepwater Horizon spill. In a free market, BP could not have just gone and started drilling with a nudge-nudge wink-wink from Federal regulators who had no real stake in the outcome and who made no serious effort to sanity check what they were doing; they would have had to convince the Gulf residents themselves, directly, that the risks of drilling were worth the benefits.