So it's good if a business owner loses business because consumers won't buy products from a known polluter, but it's bad if he loses business because government regulations restrict his ability to be a polluter?
Yes. In a free society, voluntary, free market transactions (the public at large) are to be trusted far more than government regulations, (made by a small handful of bureaucrats) to judge losses in business.
I'm wondering, how exactly are consumers supposed to find out on their own who's a polluter? Blogs? The National Enquirer? Fox News? Are you personally going to investigate whether or not there's jet fuel in your milk, DDT in your carrots, and PCBs in your drinking water?
If milk, carrots, and drinking water tasted bad, it would be a good indicator. If one company’s milk or carrots tasted better than another company’s, company #1 would get the business and make more money. Of course I realize that one company isn’t in a position to test another company’s product, and taste isn’t always foolproof, some poison is tasteless. If testing is required, it should be up to the states to do it, each in their own way as they see fit.
It's not historical revisionism to note that industries simply don't regulate themselves for the common good. Meat processing plants didn't voluntarily stop allowing rat droppings, the rats themselves, and workers' fingers from being mixed in with the sausage. Coal mine owners didn't decide on their own to stop sending men and boys down to work 12 hour shifts breathing coal dust. Big agricultural concerns didn't do studies on their own to see what massive use of pesticides was doing to the environment. They didn't do these things until the government, taking seriously its responsibility to the general welfare, got involved.
States, each in their own way. That way, what works the best and most efficient gets a state bragging rights, and encourages other states to follow that example.
I will admit that every once in a while, companies do respond to consumer demand that they clean up their act. For example, Nike finally decided, after years of protests about its use of sweatshops in other countries, to stop attacking its critics and start monitoring working conditions abroad. However, they still make almost all of their goods in countries like China, where there is no environmental regulation, no labor laws, and workers make less than $2 a day. The point remains: companies will do whatever they can get away with in order to maximize their profits. Capitalism is founded on the principle that companies should do whatever they can get away with to maximize their profits.
And tyrannies are founded on the principle that people are too stupid to look out for themselves, when voluntarily dealing in free markets. And the peoples’ well being always comes in second behind the tyrant(s) acquisition of power and money for himself.
By the way, the case of China illustrates why it takes federal regulation, not state regulation, to restrict harmful practices. Just as the US government is in no position to tell China to not dump toxic waste, if you depended on state regulation, Florida would be powerless to prevent hog farms in Georgia from flushing their waste downstream and across the state line. Environmental regulation is manifestly a federal issue.
They could appeal to the federal government on a case-by-case basis. Most environmental issues aren’t about pollution crossing state lines that one state finds objectionable while another does not.
So given the above, can you come up with any companies that have actually gone out of business due to environmental regulation? Names and dates, please.
EPA regulations force power plant out of business, more to follow | The Daily Caller
Large scale ones are easy to find on the net, but the smaller scale ones aren’t nearly as documented. Runaway environmentalism indirectly cripples business and destroys livelihoods / liberty. For example, from 1980 to 1990, the cost of auto paint in the U.S multiplied by about seven times, far more than most any other product. Mostly because of stringent new standards paint companies had to face during that decade. I was in the business at that time, that’s how I know. I’m sure someone in the laundry business for a long period, or any business that uses chemicals, could tell similar stories. It’s effects run deep throughout a society.
Seems that the only liberty you seem concerned with is the liberty to make as much money as you can.
I'm concerned with a society that trusts their safety to government agents who often have the same disposition and attitude of a motor vehicle clerk, or IRS agent.
™ Version 4.2
(1)