I understand well your argument; however, the author (and I, to a large extent) would argue that the danger is is incrementalism or, as it is alternatively labeled, gradualism. An inch given to government becomes a mile taken, and not returned.
I'm inclined to believe that, where workplace safety regulations are concerned, companies should compete on a cost basis for employees. There's some point at which no one will work in a hazardous environment, and to be sure, a clean, safe workplace is going to tend to be attractive to more diligent, self-concerned and attentive individuals. Where the median is can be determined by the market for labor that each individual with potential, and seeking capital in return for his/her effort, offers.
At the very least...and, most importantly... it puts the decision (whether in retrospect proven to have been a good or bad one) in the hands of the individual rather than the claws of the state: I see an unimpeachable personal choice in choosing to suck up carcinogenic fumes for $20/hr at Factory A rather than staying healthy at $10/hr in the filtered, fume-free workplace of Factory B.
Or so one school of thought sees it.
LPS5 |
