Lead(Pb), Mercury(Hg), other toxics, capitalism and goverment role?

[russ_watters]

But we also have to think how those toxics are disposed.

Agreed!

And why not use other that do the same but have less or no colateral damage?.

Because often they don't exist. Often it is exactly the properties that make these substances harmful that also make them useful.

 

[Proton Soup]

sometimes the role of government seems to be to protect polluters for the sake of protecting capitalism. for instance, for many years, high-fructose corn syrup was produced using acids and bases that were manufactured with the mercury cell process. mercury was being introduced directly into the food supply. only recently, now that mercury cell-based acid base reagents are becoming obsolete in the food industry did this become public knowledge. oops.

 

[AlexES16]

sometimes the role of government seems to be to protect polluters for the sake of protecting capitalism. for instance, for many years, high-fructose corn syrup was produced using acids and bases that were manufactured with the mercury cell process. mercury was being introduced directly into the food supply. only recently, now that mercury cell-based acid base reagents are becoming obsolete in the food industry did this become public knowledge. oops.

In cases like that we really need government to do the job is suposed to do. So maybe if we have a market eocnomy but also a democratic and transparent government and they punished polluters and companies that made things like you have posted.

 

[AlexES16]

Agreed! Because often they don't exist. Often it is exactly the properties that make these substances harmful that also make them useful.

OK let's go back to the debate about government intervention. For me a democratic and transparent government that really make environment laws based on scientific and conclusive studies and at the same time a market economy is the best and more reasonable. Its not total cpaitalism, its not communism, its just practical i guess, no fancy philosophies.

 

[AlexES16]

Btw sorry for my english

 

[heusdens]

Why do you care if the things you buy have these substances in them? Yes, for government to control pollution is authoritarian/anti-capitalism/anti-freedom. But a modern democracy isn't completely lassez-faire: it has to exert a reasonable amount of control over certain things in the common interest.

Isn't this a bit of a cliché to say that any form of government intervention, and esp. in this field of protecting human health and the environment, would be "authoritarian" or "anti-freedom"?

If the government makes regulations for protecting our health and our environment, this is not authoritarian or anti-freedom, quite the contrary, it enables us to live free by enforcing health standards.

The opposite role, protecting the polluters for protecting "free trade" and "free markets" is what attacks the freedom of humanity.

So it is quite logical and necessary that governments set standards for our living environment, and has the means to enforce them by law.

 

[AlexES16]

Isn't this a bit of a cliché to say that any form of government intervention, and esp. in this field of protecting human health and the environment, would be "authoritarian" or "anti-freedom"?

If the government makes regulations for protecting our health and our environment, this is not authoritarian or anti-freedom, quite the contrary, it enables us to live free by enforcing health standards.

The opposite role, protecting the polluters for protecting "free trade" and "free markets" is what attacks the freedom of humanity.

So it is quite logical and necessary that governments set standards for our living environment, and has the means to enforce them by law.

Awesome words. This government laws and force most be oriented and with total guidance of the ethical scientific community.