[Godstud]

Good points, Pants-on-dog. Those are exactly the faults I see in it. A free market is not self-policing. Informing the public of what'll hurt them won't be a priority, and indeed, would likely be hidden. As long as they are making profit$, why should they be concerned?

Even things that cause cancer are only bad if discovered, adn there are always going to be more consumers, if the ones you have die of cancer caused by your product.

[Social_Critic]

I guess one problem I see is that many libertarians assume one can sue the other side. But in many nations it doesn't work that way, the cfc manufacturing plant managers would find themselves with a spear stuck in their gut.

[Godstud]

Only if they KNEW the factories were spewing CFCs...

[Eran]

No. They don't know they were harmed by my good or service.

They will be informed by one of two classes of interested strangers.

First, those who, out of charity and concern, wish to eliminate unnecessary risks to ignorant consumers.

Second, those who make it their profession to profit from the exposure and prosecution of producer malfeasance.

Why would it become known? I am not telling anyone about the harm (if I even know about it) and no one is checking.

Why assume nobody will be checking? Remember the issue of supposed brain-damage caused by cellular phones? People love nothing more than a good scare, and journalists, public-safety advocates (like Ralph Nader) and for-profit firms (like law-firms engaged in mass class-action suits) are very effective at uncovering safety issues. Certainly no less effective than government regulators who, more often than not, react to discoveries by others.

So, if the cases are uncommon enough,I'll get away with it.

If cases are uncommon enough, the problem may not warrant the cost of solution. Or are you suggesting that any cost is worth eliminating risk, no matter how uncommon?

If that corporation goes under, I'll just start a new one with a new name.

And who will invest in your new corporation, or buy from it? People, if you haven't noticed, like buying from brand names, precisely because those have a multi-year history of providing quality products. New operators have to work hard to win the public trust, without which they have nothing.

[Pants-of-dog]

They will be informed by one of two classes of interested strangers.

First, those who, out of charity and concern, wish to eliminate unnecessary risks to ignorant consumers.

No. They also don't know that anyone was harmed by my good or service.

Second, those who make it their profession to profit from the exposure and prosecution of producer malfeasance.

These hypothetical people don't exist. There is no profit in such a venture.

Why assume nobody will be checking? Remember the issue of supposed brain-damage caused by cellular phones? People love nothing more than a good scare, and journalists, public-safety advocates (like Ralph Nader) and for-profit firms (like law-firms engaged in mass class-action suits) are very effective at uncovering safety issues. Certainly no less effective than government regulators who, more often than not, react to discoveries by others.

Because people don't check. There was no one from the free market checking for the harm caused by CFC gases.

You are making a weird assumption that people will check to see fi my good or service is safe despite the lack of a clear relationship between my good or service and the harm caused.

If cases are uncommon enough, the problem may not warrant the cost of solution. Or are you suggesting that any cost is worth eliminating risk, no matter how uncommon?

In other words, you agree that I can add melamine to milk in order to save costs as long as only a few babies die. Cool.

And who will invest in your new corporation, or buy from it? People, if you haven't noticed, like buying from brand names, precisely because those have a multi-year history of providing quality products. New operators have to work hard to win the public trust, without which they have nothing.

I can sell my stuff cheaper because I don't have to pay for having something that is actually safe. I'll get investors who are looking for quick short term profits.

[KPres]

"""No. They don't know they were harmed by my good or service."""

If there's a potential harm to consumers, you'd probably see consumer watchdog groups pop up that act very much like a government (issuing certifications/licenses and such, and requiring disclosure/inspections), only subject to competitive forces themselves. This already exists to some degree with orgs like the Underwrites Lab. Insurance companies would also play a role. Of course, such certifications wouldn't be mandatory, but you might have trouble finding buyers without it if the risk is high enough. I happen to work in a field that's privately regulated in this way. One of the advantages is that only the producer/customer of a given product pay for the certification, so it's more economically efficient than drawing from the general treasury.

"""These hypothetical people don't exist. There is no profit in such a venture."""

Newspapers already do this with investigative reporting, and they make a profit.

""""In other words, you agree that I can add melamine to milk in order to save costs as long as only a few babies die. Cool.""""

Automobiles kill more than a few babies, yet people are OK with that even though we could probably eliminate it by building cars like tanks and limiting speeds to 10 MPH. But people don't want to pay those costs. It's worth a few babies.

[Pants-of-dog]

If there's a potential harm to consumers, you'd probably see consumer watchdog groups pop up that act very much like a government (issuing certifications/licenses and such, and requiring disclosure/inspections), only subject to competitive forces themselves.

Yet this didn't happen with CFCs. Why not?

This already exists to some degree with orgs like the Underwrites Lab.

Not quite. The Underwriter's Laboratories do not set standards or define regulations by themselves. They test products to ensure that they meet the regulations. Because of their testing experience, they are often invited to help craft regulation, but that is not their main mandate.

Insurance companies would also play a role. Of course, such certifications wouldn't be mandatory, but you might have trouble finding buyers without it if the risk is high enough. I happen to work in a field that's privately regulated in this way. One of the advantages is that only the producer/customer of a given product pay for the certification, so it's more economically efficient than drawing from the general treasury.

My hypothetical villainous seller would say he doesn't need insurance.

Newspapers already do this with investigative reporting, and they make a profit.

Actually, newspapers make money despite doing investigative journalism. Investigative journalism takes the most experienced journalists, requires them to work for a very long time on a single story, often turns up nothing, and does not attract advertisers.

Automobiles kill more than a few babies, yet people are OK with that even though we could probably eliminate it by building cars like tanks and limiting speeds to 10 MPH. But people don't want to pay those costs. It's worth a few babies.

I agree. People do seem to be all right with killing babies so that they can drive. That is where the free market has led us. Congratulations.

[AFAIK]

My hypothetical villainous seller would say he doesn't need insurance.

S/he would run the risk of being bankrupted by tort litigation if his or her products caused harm to humans or their property. Of course consumers would have the opportunity to boycott her/his goods and services in favour of safer options.

Actually, newspapers make money despite doing investigative journalism. Investigative journalism takes the most experienced journalists, requires them to work for a very long time on a single story, often turns up nothing, and does not attract advertisers.

Newspapers sell audiences to advertisers. If investigative journalism attracts readers the paper can sell access to those readers to advertisers.

I agree. People do seem to be all right with killing babies so that they can drive. That is where the free market has led us. Congratulations.

I'm not aware of infanticide being a requirement for drivers. I imagine you're referring to those killed by traffic collisions and pollution. Those who cause harm to others are held fully accountable for that harm by libertarian legal institutions.

Uninsured drivers would likely be denied access to privately owned roads. Insurance companies are unlikely to cover dangerous or incompetent drivers.

[Pants-of-dog]

S/he would run the risk of being bankrupted by tort litigation if his or her products caused harm to humans or their property. Of course consumers would have the opportunity to boycott her/his goods and services in favour of safer options.

Again, the unsupported assumption is that my customers somehow know that my good or service is causing damage to them. But like melamine in milk, or asbestos in your socks, of CFC gases in your ozone layer, the risk is not apparent.

Newspapers sell audiences to advertisers. If investigative journalism attracts readers the paper can sell access to those readers to advertisers.

That's a big "if". Do you really want to base the safety of goods and services on whether or not people want to read investigative news stories?

I'm not aware of infanticide being a requirement for drivers. I imagine you're referring to those killed by traffic collisions and pollution. Those who cause harm to others are held fully accountable for that harm by libertarian legal institutions.

No. Those who cause harm to others are supposed to be held fully accountable for that harm by mythical libertarian legal institutions.

Back in modern reality, thousands (perhaps millions) die each year due to automobile pollution. Since cars are required (due to modern technology) to spew toxic gases in order to move, this means that that in order to drive, it is more or less required for the driver to help kill all these people with pollution.

Uninsured drivers would likely be denied access to privately owned roads. Insurance companies are unlikely to cover dangerous or incompetent drivers.

So, how did the free market stop CFC gases from destroying the ozone layer?

Did some investigative journalist the CFC's insurance company?

Did the Invisible Hand somehow deny the CFC from aggressing against the privately owned ozone?

[KPres]

Yet this didn't happen with CFCs. Why not?

It's a collective action problem, and that's why I actually agree with you that government needed to be involved in CFCs. Markets can't solve a collective action problem on that scale (they can solve smaller ones). I disagree with you, though, that the government needs to regulate other issues like consumer safety or product quality. Markets can do that on their own.

Not quite. The Underwriter's Laboratories do not set standards or define regulations by themselves. They test products to ensure that they meet the regulations.

No, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. I have direct experience here. I work in an industry that is governed by UL standards. UL writes the standards book, and they're not a legal requirement, but our customers require that the product bear the UL stamp, showing that it's been inspected. The government is not involved.

I agree. People do seem to be all right with killing babies so that they can drive. That is where the free market has led us. Congratulations.

Car accidents kill babies in communist countries, too. Hell, look back through history on this planet...how many babies died? A third of them? A quarter? But capitalism has led us here, you say, where only a few die. Well good on Capitalism then!

[Pants-of-dog]

I disagree with you, though, that the government needs to regulate other issues like consumer safety or product quality. Markets can do that on their own.

Not really. One of the problems with CFC gases that I already pointed out was that consumers had no idea of the dangers. This still applies even if the dangers are not collective.

No, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. I have direct experience here. I work in an industry that is governed by UL standards. UL writes the standards book, and they're not a legal requirement, but our customers require that the product bear the UL stamp, showing that it's been inspected. The government is not involved.

I also have direct experience. The way it works is like this: gov'ts set up regulatory bodies that involve industry stakeholders. Then these bodies set the regs and then the goods provider goes to UL and has them test the product to make sure it is meets the regs.

Car accidents kill babies in communist countries, too. Hell, look back through history on this planet...how many babies died? A third of them? A quarter? But capitalism has led us here, you say, where only a few die. Well good on Capitalism then!

This is a logical fallacy. capitalism doesn't somehow magically not kill babies just because other systems also do so.

[AFAIK]

Again, the unsupported assumption is that my customers somehow know that my good or service is causing damage to them. But like melamine in milk, or asbestos in your socks, of CFC gases in your ozone layer, the risk is not apparent.

How does the state become aware of these phenomena? Why would these mechanisms be unavailable to those in a minarchy or anarchy?

That's a big "if". Do you really want to base the safety of goods and services on whether or not people want to read investigative news stories?

You can limit your purchases to products that have been tested and insured by reputable companies. These companies will be in competition with one another unlike the state run monopolies of today.

No. Those who cause harm to others are supposed to be held fully accountable for that harm by mythical libertarian legal institutions.

Torts are mythical?

Back in modern reality, thousands (perhaps millions) die each year due to automobile pollution. Since cars are required (due to modern technology) to spew toxic gases in order to move, this means that that in order to drive, it is more or less required for the driver to help kill all these people with pollution.

If residents owned the roads outside their homes they could deny access to others based upon their own desires and regulations.

So, how did the free market stop CFC gases from destroying the ozone layer?

Did some investigative journalist the CFC's insurance company?

Did the Invisible Hand somehow deny the CFC from aggressing against the privately owned ozone?

1- Boycotts, divestment, sanctions, torts.
2- No such mechanisms existed at that time. I doubt a journalist would sue CFC producers by his or herself. A class action lawsuit by Australian farmers, skin cancer sufferers, tourism operators, etc. would be more likely.
3- The ozone layer isn't privately owned but those living beneath it have easements (user rights) to its functions and can sue those who interfere with those functions if such interference causes them harm.

When CFCs were identified as the cause of a problem the most convenient solution was to get states to pass and enforce legislation on their production and use. Libertarians propose alternative institutions and mechanisms to regulate society.

[Eran]

Yet this didn't happen with CFCs. Why not?

The regulatory mechanisms of the free market are most effective when the issue directly impacts the buyer. CFC-related harms do not materially affect those who buy CFC-based products.

To avoid the kind of indirect damage caused by CFCs, alternative mechanisms (pressure groups, consumer action, environmentalist societies, media and popular campaigns, etc.) would be required.

Not quite. The Underwriter's Laboratories do not set standards or define regulations by themselves. They test products to ensure that they meet the regulations. Because of their testing experience, they are often invited to help craft regulation, but that is not their main mandate.

Not today. But it doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to see their role evolve in the absence of government regulations.

My hypothetical villainous seller would say he doesn't need insurance.

Why would anybody buy from them, though?

I agree. People do seem to be all right with killing babies so that they can drive. That is where the free market has led us. Congratulations.

Since governments determine the rules of the road today, blaming the free market for car accidents is odd.

Again, the unsupported assumption is that my customers somehow know that my good or service is causing damage to them.

They don't need to know that, any more than voters need to know those same things. Voters vote for politicians who promise them regulations. Consumers can achieve precisely the same end by restricting their buying to certified products.

I work in an industry that is governed by UL standards.

May I ask which industry that is?


I work in an industry that is governed by UL standards.

[KPres]

Not really. One of the problems with CFC gases that I already pointed out was that consumers had no idea of the dangers. This still applies even if the dangers are not collective.

No, you're wrong. If there's no externality, then all the costs relating to safety or quality are borne by the buyer, so the incentives align properly and buyers will demand disclosure and/or inspection from producers under the threat of competition. For instance, there's no law that says car dealerships have to disclose the history of the cars they sell, but most of them will provide the CarFax anyway, because knowing consumers are more likely to buy cars when they know the history means that if they reveal it they can sell at a higher margin. No need for a law.

I also have direct experience. The way it works is like this: gov'ts set up regulatory bodies that involve industry stakeholders. Then these bodies set the regs and then the goods provider goes to UL and has them test the product to make sure it is meets the regs.

Then apparently they act in both capacities, because I am certain that the standards we use are written entirely by UL and the product inspections are not required by law. They are sometimes required by the insurance carrier.

Anyway, this is from their website...

"Manufacturers submit products to UL for testing and safety certification on a voluntary basis. There are no laws specifying that a UL Mark must be used. However, in the United States there are many municipalities that have laws, codes or regulations which require a product to be tested by a nationally recognized testing laboratory before it can be sold in their area."

This is a logical fallacy. capitalism doesn't somehow magically not kill babies just because other systems also do so.

That wasn't my claim. You that said capitalism caused dead babies. That was the fallacy (nirvana fallacy).

Because babies die in all systems, capitalism can't be isolated as the cause, and your claim that it is wasn't valid.

May I ask which industry that is?

I'd like to tell you, but it's a small industry and I'm paranoid about NSA databases.

[Someone5]

S/he would run the risk of being bankrupted by tort litigation if his or her products caused harm to humans or their property

Awesome, he collects his profits and buys an island somewhere because the tort will be against the corporation, not the individuals involved. Maybe he doesn't really care about long term profits--maybe he just wants to make his billion then retire. If he can do that unsafely in 10 years, as opposed to safely over 30, well, why work an extra 20 years?

Of course consumers would have the opportunity to boycott her/his goods and services in favour of safer options.

If they knew, but good information is expensive.

Newspapers sell audiences to advertisers. If investigative journalism attracts readers the paper can sell access to those readers to advertisers.

But it costs more than the Jail Report, and probably doesn't draw that many more viewers. It's the same reason there's not a lot of far-out-there Sci-fi on television anymore. It's expensive to produce and doesn't draw a correspondingly large number of viewers when you compare it with the ratings on much less expensive "reality TV".

Plus, the newspapers and television news organizations are privately owned; large manufacturers can and do buy their way off the front pages by threatening ad buys.

I'm not aware of infanticide being a requirement for drivers.

Exactly. Good information is expensive and often hard to acquire. A willingness to potentially commit infanticide is, in fact, a requirement for drivers. They just don't bother to analyze that part of things because, well, people are kind of bad at estimating and reacting to risk. Especially long term risks.

I imagine you're referring to those killed by traffic collisions and pollution. Those who cause harm to others are held fully accountable for that harm by libertarian legal institutions.

Which are mainly a joke, since it basically boils down to "does your private security firms care enough about this issue to force the matter?" Ultimately it will lead to justice for rich people, but injustice for the poor. Worse than we have now, no less.

Uninsured drivers would likely be denied access to privately owned roads. Insurance companies are unlikely to cover dangerous or incompetent drivers.

Which necessarily means that privately owned roads would be inadequate to service the needs of communities.

[Pants-of-dog]

How does the state become aware of these phenomena? Why would these mechanisms be unavailable to those in a minarchy or anarchy?

The state becomes aware of it by spending money (that returns no direct profit) on regulatory boards.

You can limit your purchases to products that have been tested and insured by reputable companies. These companies will be in competition with one another unlike the state run monopolies of today.

Answer the question.

Do you really want to base the safety of goods and services on whether or not people want to read investigative news stories?

Torts are mythical?

As a way of dealing with pollution and other externalities like CFC gases, yes, they are as useful as unicorns.

If residents owned the roads outside their homes they could deny access to others based upon their own desires and regulations.

If unicorns were real, we could all ride them to work.

1- Boycotts, divestment, sanctions, torts.

Please provide evidence that the free market used these mechanisms to regualte CCs without gov't intervention. Thank you.

2- No such mechanisms existed at that time. I doubt a journalist would sue CFC producers by his or herself. A class action lawsuit by Australian farmers, skin cancer sufferers, tourism operators, etc. would be more likely.

Investigative journalism didn't exist before the 1970s? Holy granola! Someone should tell the press that all the IJ they did before that wasn't real!

3- The ozone layer isn't privately owned but those living beneath it have easements (user rights) to its functions and can sue those who interfere with those functions if such interference causes them harm.

Did they? No. So why are you bringing this up?

When CFCs were identified as the cause of a problem the most convenient solution was to get states to pass and enforce legislation on their production and use. Libertarians propose alternative institutions and mechanisms to regulate society.

These alternative solutions don't seem to work in reality.

--------------------

The regulatory mechanisms of the free market are most effective when the issue directly impacts the buyer. CFC-related harms do not materially affect those who buy CFC-based products.

To avoid the kind of indirect damage caused by CFCs, alternative mechanisms (pressure groups, consumer action, environmentalist societies, media and popular campaigns, etc.) would be required.

So, you admit that the free market is particularly unsuited for this sort of thing.

Not today. But it doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to see their role evolve in the absence of government regulations.

Yes, it does take a huge leap. UL is not going to spend money on hiring industry stakeholders that compete with them to put together a regulatory body that has representatives of all the different stakeholders in the industry.

Why would anybody buy from them, though?

Because the product is cheaper.

Since governments determine the rules of the road today, blaming the free market for car accidents is odd.

I'm not. Please reread my posts.

They don't need to know that, any more than voters need to know those same things. Voters vote for politicians who promise them regulations. Consumers can achieve precisely the same end by restricting their buying to certified products.

If people want to stop buying my good or service because of the harm it causes, then they have to know that mu good or service causes harm.

---------------------

No, you're wrong. If there's no externality, then all the costs relating to safety or quality are borne by the buyer, so the incentives align properly and buyers will demand disclosure and/or inspection from producers under the threat of competition. For instance, there's no law that says car dealerships have to disclose the history of the cars they sell, but most of them will provide the CarFax anyway, because knowing consumers are more likely to buy cars when they know the history means that if they reveal it they can sell at a higher margin. No need for a law.

Like I said, My point has nothing to do with externalities. My point was about knowledge. If the consumers do not know that the good or service is causing a problem, there can be no consumer impetus to boycott the good or service.

Then apparently they act in both capacities, because I am certain that the standards we use are written entirely by UL and the product inspections are not required by law. They are sometimes required by the insurance carrier.

Anyway, this is from their website...

"Manufacturers submit products to UL for testing and safety certification on a voluntary basis. There are no laws specifying that a UL Mark must be used. However, in the United States there are many municipalities that have laws, codes or regulations which require a product to be tested by a nationally recognized testing laboratory before it can be sold in their area."

None of that disproves my claim that UL tests and does not write the regulations all by themselves.

That wasn't my claim. You that said capitalism caused dead babies. That was the fallacy (nirvana fallacy).

Because babies die in all systems, capitalism can't be isolated as the cause, and your claim that it is wasn't valid.

"Jews die in hospitals. Jews also fie in Nazi death camps.

Because Jews also die in hospitals, Nazi death camps can't be isolated as the cause, thus the claim that Nazi death camps killed Jews wasn't valid."

Something seems wrong with your logic here.

[AFAIK]

Awesome, he collects his profits and buys an island somewhere because the tort will be against the corporation, not the individuals involved. Maybe he doesn't really care about long term profits--maybe he just wants to make his billion then retire. If he can do that unsafely in 10 years, as opposed to safely over 30, well, why work an extra 20 years?

So we confiscate his island, auction it off and distribute the proceeds to his victims.

Plus, the newspapers and television news organizations are privately owned; large manufacturers can and do buy their way off the front pages by threatening ad buys.

Lots of shortcomings within privately owned for profit media. There are alternatives especially for those who take an interest in managing their own affairs.

Which are mainly a joke, since it basically boils down to "does your private security firms care enough about this issue to force the matter?" Ultimately it will lead to justice for rich people, but injustice for the poor. Worse than we have now, no less.

We're all equal before libertarian law. One death deserves the same level of compensation as any other (assuming identical circumstances).

Which necessarily means that privately owned roads would be inadequate to service the needs of communities.

I don't follow. Could you elaborate?

Answer the question.

Do you really want to base the safety of goods and services on whether or not people want to read investigative news stories?

I would buy products that have been tested and certified by reputable organisations similar to the "CE"and "ISO" labels we see on many products today. Manufacturers and brands would pay for these services themselves and pass the costs on to consumers. Those who don't value product safety as highly as I do would have the option of buying cheaper, non-vetted goods.

Blah, blah, blah.

You take things very literally. I was offering an explanation of how libertarian institutions and social systems may respond to the issue of CFC emissions and Ozone depletion. If you wish to discuss the actual events start a thread in the history forum.

[Pants-of-dog]

I would buy products that have been tested and certified by reputable organisations similar to the "CE"and "ISO" labels we see on many products today. Manufacturers and brands would pay for these services themselves and pass the costs on to consumers. Those who don't value product safety as highly as I do would have the option of buying cheaper, non-vetted goods.

Since you didn't answer the question, I will assume that you agree that investigative journalism does not suffice as a guarantee of the safety of goods and services.

You take things very literally. I was offering an explanation of how libertarian institutions and social systems may respond to the issue of CFC emissions and Ozone depletion. If you wish to discuss the actual events start a thread in the history forum.

Yes, right wing libertarianism works well in a mythical or hypothetical world. We all agree on that. In that respect, it is similar to every other economic or political system ever devised. However, things like CFCs show how free market libertarianism doesn't work in real life.

I already know how the free market MAY respond to these problems in Galt's Gulch. What the OP and I wish to discuss is why these don't actually work out in reality.

[Eran]

So, you admit that the free market is particularly unsuited for this sort of thing.

That depends on what you mean by "free market". If you focus on the "market" component, i.e. the world of arms-length, profit-motivated transactions, you may well be correct, although for-profit charities may well play an important role. But then neither I nor any other libertarian ever assumed, predicted or wished for for-profit to be the exclusive type of human interaction.

In fact, libertarians tend to emphasise the broader world of "civic society" which encompasses a wide range of voluntary, not-for-profit activities and organisations.

UL is not going to spend money on hiring industry stakeholders that compete with them to put together a regulatory body that has representatives of all the different stakeholders in the industry.

Yet industry-wide, voluntary standard-setting organisations exist and operate all the time. Internet standards, for example, are set precisely by such bodies.

Because the product is cheaper.

Perhaps. It is possible that some people prefer to save some money at the expense of risk. If so, who are you (or is government) to prohibit them from doing so? But the way markets operate, profit margins tend to be squeezed, and "features" tend to propagate down the price scale. Inexpensive solutions to safety issues would tend to get universalised, just as all cars today tend to be equipped with A/C and a radio, once considered luxury features.

I'm not. Please reread my posts.

I did. I wrote: "Since governments determine the rules of the road today, blaming the free market for car accidents is odd." in response to your statement: "People do seem to be all right with killing babies so that they can drive. That is where the free market has led us. Congratulations."
Please explain what you meant by the bolded sentence, if not to blame the free market for car accidents.

If people want to stop buying my good or service because of the harm it causes, then they have to know that mu good or service causes harm.

Not so. People will stop buying your good not because they know it causes harm, but because they aren't convinced that it doesn't. In other words, people can easily and simply restrict their purchases to those products, producers and retailers that they have a reason to trust. If they don't know you and your products, they won't buy them.

"Jews die in hospitals. Jews also fie in Nazi death camps.

Because Jews also die in hospitals, Nazi death camps can't be isolated as the cause, thus the claim that Nazi death camps killed Jews wasn't valid."

Something seems wrong with your logic here.

More healthy Jews died in Nazi death camps than in hospitals. Is it your claim that more babies die under capitalism than under other economic systems?

Since you didn't answer the question, I will assume that you agree that investigative journalism does not suffice as a guarantee of the safety of goods and services.

Investigative journalism is one component in the eco-system around product safety. Nobody suggests it alone suffices to guarantee the safety of goods and services. In fact, no system can "guarantee" that safety. Certainly not government regulation which has been with us for a century, even while countless unsafe products have been consumed, and killed countless consumers.

Yes, right wing libertarianism works well in a mythical or hypothetical world. We all agree on that. In that respect, it is similar to every other economic or political system ever devised. However, things like CFCs show how free market libertarianism doesn't work in real life.

No, it doesn't. Since libertarianism doesn't exist "in real life" (according to your assertion), no evidence from real life can show that libertarianism doesn't work in real life.

At most, CFCs represent an example of a problem that may be more difficult to tackle using free-society (market and non-market) tools.

What the OP and I wish to discuss is why these don't actually work out in reality.

And what evidence or rational arguments have you presented?

[Pants-of-dog]

That depends on what you mean by "free market". If you focus on the "market" component, i.e. the world of arms-length, profit-motivated transactions, you may well be correct, although for-profit charities may well play an important role. But then neither I nor any other libertarian ever assumed, predicted or wished for for-profit to be the exclusive type of human interaction.

In fact, libertarians tend to emphasise the broader world of "civic society" which encompasses a wide range of voluntary, not-for-profit activities and organisations.

These other activities and organisations already exist. If they were not effective in our real world, why would they be any more effective in Galt's Gulch?

Yet industry-wide, voluntary standard-setting organisations exist and operate all the time. Internet standards, for example, are set precisely by such bodies.

Standards are not regulations. How would UL deal with the CFC gas problem, for example?

Perhaps. It is possible that some people prefer to save some money at the expense of risk. If so, who are you (or is government) to prohibit them from doing so? But the way markets operate, profit margins tend to be squeezed, and "features" tend to propagate down the price scale. Inexpensive solutions to safety issues would tend to get universalised, just as all cars today tend to be equipped with A/C and a radio, once considered luxury features.

They don't know they are risking anything.

But your suggestion that poor people need only wait for the economy to eventually provide them with safe goods and services is unrealistic. How would this work for CFC gases?

I did. I wrote: "Since governments determine the rules of the road today, blaming the free market for car accidents is odd." in response to your statement: "People do seem to be all right with killing babies so that they can drive. That is where the free market has led us. Congratulations."
Please explain what you meant by the bolded sentence, if not to blame the free market for car accidents.

I am discussing pollution.

Not so. People will stop buying your good not because they know it causes harm, but because they aren't convinced that it doesn't. In other words, people can easily and simply restrict their purchases to those products, producers and retailers that they have a reason to trust. If they don't know you and your products, they won't buy them.

This is one of two assumptions that libertarians tend to have that is not supported by reality: that people will always behave perfectly rationally.

More healthy Jews died in Nazi death camps than in hospitals. Is it your claim that more babies die under capitalism than under other economic systems?

I am not making a comparison to other systems.

Investigative journalism is one component in the eco-system around product safety. Nobody suggests it alone suffices to guarantee the safety of goods and services. In fact, no system can "guarantee" that safety. Certainly not government regulation which has been with us for a century, even while countless unsafe products have been consumed, and killed countless consumers.

The fact that you drink tap water suggests that you feel that the gov't pretty much guarantees that it is potable.

No, it doesn't. Since libertarianism doesn't exist "in real life" (according to your assertion), no evidence from real life can show that libertarianism doesn't work in real life.

At most, CFCs represent an example of a problem that may be more difficult to tackle using free-society (market and non-market) tools.

This is weird logic. If you completely disregard empirical evidence, how do you test to see if your claims are actually valid in reality?

And what evidence or rational arguments have you presented?

First, there is the empirical evidence that the manufacturers of freon and other CFC gases did nothing to regulate the harm caused by their goods or services. They made no effort to determine if there were any collective harms. They did not educate their buyers about it

Logical arguments include, but are not limited to, the fact that consumers are not as likely to react to collective harms as they do to ones that directly affect them, that pollution is an externality so it is in the company's financial interests to not bring attention to it or in any way accept responsibility for it, and the fact that consumers cannot make informed decisions without some sort of funded research into these things.