[IntelCore]

There is pretty much a worldwide ban on CFC gasses, which is about as strict and universal government regulation as you can get. What do most libertarians feel about this? Should we rely on people who are getting skin cancer suing CFC manufactures all over the world, and hope that they will self-regulate?
I would assume that major CFC manufacturers would be able to get pretty good lawyers, and it would certainly be an expensive way to go about it. Besides, by the time everyone stopped making CFC in fear of being sued, loads of people would probably have died from skin cancer already.
Are there some examples like this when government regulation is simply the best/most effective way of solving a problem?

[Eran]

In the context of a system in which government is expected to regulated atmospheric pollution, banning CFC may well have been appropriate.

As an anarchist, this is hardly an excuse for giving government regulatory powers. To decide that giving government such powers is a good idea, one has to balance the occasional example of beneficial government regulation with the tremendous damage to society and economy (and, more often than not, the environment) caused by a wide range of expensive, inefficient, competition-stifling, poverty-exacerbating, corrupt and often simply stupid government regulations.

Additionally, there is no reason to assume that, absent the Montreal Protocol, atmospheric CFC would have significantly depleted ozone beyond the polar regions, where the activity of CFC is "dramatically enhanced in the presence of polar stratospheric clouds" (quoted from Wikipedia).

[mikema63]

CFC is well proven to degrade O3, the layer is quite thin.

The balance of O3 repleneshment and its degradation into O2 is a delicate balance.

Since CFC's aren't difficult to replace its hardly some great tragedy that they are banned.

[AFAIK]

Asbestos is a more controversial example. Some countries still allow mining today.

[IntelCore]

In the context of a system in which government is expected to regulated atmospheric pollution, banning CFC may well have been appropriate.

As an anarchist, this is hardly an excuse for giving government regulatory powers. To decide that giving government such powers is a good idea, one has to balance the occasional example of beneficial government regulation with the tremendous damage to society and economy (and, more often than not, the environment) caused by a wide range of expensive, inefficient, competition-stifling, poverty-exacerbating, corrupt and often simply stupid government regulations.

Additionally, there is no reason to assume that, absent the Montreal Protocol, atmospheric CFC would have significantly depleted ozone beyond the polar regions, where the activity of CFC is "dramatically enhanced in the presence of polar stratospheric clouds" (quoted from Wikipedia).

I find your lack of concern for polar regions disturbing :P I myself live above the polar circle in Northern Norway, and thin ozone layer has been associated with extra dangerous sunlight in regions close to the poles already, such as southern Australia and NZ.

But essentially, your argument is that government is so bad for us that it will obviously and absolutely offset any potential benefit, such as preventing ozone layer depletion?

[Godstud]

Why worry about it? The market will police itself. Isn't that what Libertarianism is about?

[AFAIK]

Why worry about it? The market will police itself. Isn't that what Libertarianism is about?

The libertarian solution is to sue people who cause you or your property harm.
Perhaps there would be international tort firms.

[Eran]

I find your lack of concern for polar regions disturbing :P I myself live above the polar circle in Northern Norway, and thin ozone layer has been associated with extra dangerous sunlight in regions close to the poles already, such as southern Australia and NZ.

With all due respect, do you not have a sense of proportion?

Governments are responsible for hundreds of millions of directly murders in the 20th century alone.
In the 21st century, they are responsible for millions of lives ruined due to prosecution of victimless crimes.
Every year, hundreds of thousands if not millions of people die because their governments, one way or the other, block access to life-saving drugs and treatments.
The waste tens of percent of the productivity of the human race.
More often than not, they are directly or indirectly responsible for the worst forms of pollution and destruction of the environment.

And you are worried about having to put sunscreen on?

But essentially, your argument is that government is so bad for us that it will obviously and absolutely offset any potential benefit, such as preventing ozone layer depletion?

Exactly.

Government is evil and destructive. It is a parasite that slows down progress and development. It is conceivable that, on rare occasions, it will get something right. But such occasional, rare, almost accidental successes come nowhere near offsetting the incalculable damage it causes to humanity.

Since CFC's aren't difficult to replace its hardly some great tragedy that they are banned.

I agree. And since they aren't difficult to replace, a consumer campaign could have easily accomplished virtually the same effects as the Montreal treaty.

Contrast its success with Kyoto's failure. International cooperation only works when the sacrifice required is very mild.

[lucky]

There is pretty much a worldwide ban on CFC gasses, which is about as strict and universal government regulation as you can get. What do most libertarians feel about this?

Good.

Are there some examples like this when government regulation is simply the best/most effective way of solving a problem?

A similar example of a successful environmental regulation is the sulfur dioxide cap and trade system in the US (the Acid Rain Program). It is pretty much unanimously regarded as a huge success.

[AFAIK]

This thread may be of interest Intel;
viewtopic.php?f=49&t=150853

I did present CFCs as an example of incremental pollution but no one addressed it at the time.

[mikema63]

Leaded gasoline's ban is also an example.

[oscar]

What's needed next is a hydrocarbon burning ban. ;>)

[mikema63]

Certainly, our end goal should of course be the collapse of civilization and the starvation of billions.

[Godstud]

What's needed next is a hydrocarbon burning ban. ;>)

We should ban the use of oxygen by people who make idiotic bans without thinking of the consequences.
The use of hydrocarbons is one of the main reasons we can have cities, of any great size. Food transport, etc. uses fuel.

[Someone5]

Why worry about it? The market will police itself. Isn't that what Libertarianism is about?

The problem lies in all the people who get harmed while lawyers spend years--or sometimes decades--fighting it out in court. It's even more questionable given the insanely fractured jurisdiction within a libertarian society. After all, everyone would always have the option of telling the court to go fuck itself and hiding behind their private armies. No one is going to pony up the money to raise a bigger army when the harm is spread thinly across the whole of society.

[Godstud]

That was my point, Someone5. The free market cannot really regulate itself beyond the economic system. Safety, the environment and other things, don't factor in.

[Eran]

The market regulates every aspect of the product that consumers care about. No less, no more. To the extent that consumers care about safety (which they obviously do), safety will be very effectively regulated by the market.

The problem lies in all the people who get harmed while lawyers spend years--or sometimes decades--fighting it out in court.

Why should you be surprised at how inefficient courts are? After all, they are run as a government monopoly!

After all, everyone would always have the option of telling the court to go fuck itself and hiding behind their private armies.

That will no more be an option in a libertarian society than the President telling the Supreme Court to go fuck itself and hiding behind the US Armed Forces. In both cases, while arguably controlling the prerequisite fire-power, going against the fundamental norms of society is so obviously self-defeating as to be virtually unthinkable.

[Pants-of-dog]

The market regulates every aspect of the product that consumers care about. No less, no more. To the extent that consumers care about safety (which they obviously do), safety will be very effectively regulated by the market.

So, if an entrepreneur wants to save costs, the entrepreneur would be well advised to not let the consumer know about the harmful effects of the entrepreneur's good or service.

If the consumer does not know something is unsafe and does not care because of this lack of knowledge, then the market won't regulate that aspect, as you point out.

[Eran]

So, if an entrepreneur wants to save costs, the entrepreneur would be well advised to not let the consumer know about the harmful effects of the entrepreneur's good or service.

If the consumer does not know something is unsafe and does not care because of this lack of knowledge, then the market won't regulate that aspect, as you point out.

Such policy would be obviously and fairly-quickly self-defeating.

First, harmed consumers may sue the entrepreneur.

Second, information about the harmful nature of the products will quickly become generally known, completely destroying the reputation and credibility of the entrepreneur.

Third, if such cases are common, consumers will no longer rely on absence of negative information about the safety of products, but will quickly come to require positive information about their safety. Such positive information may be associated with the reputation of known firms that have operated in the market for many years, or from the reputation of testing, certifying or insuring firms.

In both cases, the reputation of the firm in question is both highly valuable and fragile. Consequently, reputable firms take great measures to safeguard their reputation.

[Pants-of-dog]

Such policy would be obviously and fairly-quickly self-defeating.

First, harmed consumers may sue the entrepreneur.

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

Second, information about the harmful nature of the products will quickly become generally known, completely destroying the reputation and credibility of the entrepreneur.

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

Third, if such cases are common, consumers will no longer rely on absence of negative information about the safety of products, but will quickly come to require positive information about their safety. Such positive information may be associated with the reputation of known firms that have operated in the market for many years, or from the reputation of testing, certifying or insuring firms.

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

In both cases, the reputation of the firm in question is both highly valuable and fragile. Consequently, reputable firms take great measures to safeguard their reputation.

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