In terms of externalities, how can the free market stop a company from exploiting its workers overseas, or dumping toxic waste into a river? In Alberta we have a huge problem with the tar sands. Vast sections of that province have been stripped, water dirtied etc, with little effort on part of the companies working there to clean up their mess. Yet, as a consumer, I should stand up against this. But I don't, and I am a person who knows about this problem. Is that not a failure in the free market?
"Everybody, thanks for posting your responses. I think they are awesome. If you must know, I did not propose this question, my cousin did. I answered him almost as appropriately as you guys have, but I just wanted to amuse myself and see how everyone else would respond. I agree that this is more a failure of government than the free market, if you would define it as a failure at all."
The essence of Austrian Economics is human action, when thinking of these sorts of things you can simply ask yourself "who benefits and gains from this issue? How would each party act without a government?" The fact that most people see these things as a problem, but believe that democracy can solve the problem means that according to their own assumptions the majority of people have to want something, so why would they not act to correct it in the free society?
According to the statist mindset it would seem that there was only one mode of collective action: Actions through government. As if charities and a million other organisations didn't exist even with the overwhelming majority of collective efforts being funnelled towards the manipulation of the government apparatus. Get rid of government and you will see an increase in the social demand to solve problems, leading to an increase in the amount of social entrepreneurship dedicated to solving these problems.
To stop industrial pollution there is need of strict laws.
_______________
waste control
@Peter
What makes you think pollution is better kept in check by the State (and "strict" laws) than by strict respect for property rights?
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
That post is spam and should be deleted.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
I've been mulling over this, this week, and I think my answer would be a little simpler than the above.
Laws are commodities, just like toothbrushes. They are created when the market for them exists. You get environmental laws when the public is demanding environmental law, and not before.
Thus, the free market (via customer choice, private companies which research the habits of other companies and offer certification, investigative reporting, etc) can just as easily do the same thing and naturally WOULD, at exactly the time that the public was demanding change.
Look at the car manufacturers. They aren't doing major market research for nothing. They know, and implement developments that will affect their products and advertising, long before the laws get enacted. It's due to the market demand first and foremost.
What definition of "a law" are you using?
Wheylous had the best (funniest) responses in this thread by far!
+2
I want to say that there should be a law to stop waste disposal in rivers, agricultural land, places near by socities to provide a sustainable environment for living being.