From the Comments: Health Care Reform, Anarchist Public Policy

Anonymous commented:

"You have some truly great suggestions here. I really enjoyed this. However, the one thing that gave me prickles was the idea of "regulating" toxic chemicals. I agree there should be no toxic chemicals in our environment, but how does one "regulate" this from an anarchist standpoint? "Regulation", unless voluntary, is a governmental function. The State regulates. And the big boys usually find a way to co-opt that process. In fact, it has historically been big business who funded and fueled the "progressive party" regulation movement. One possible direction might be to research and then remove laws which protect companies producing toxic chemicals from liability. Liability suits could then make it more costly for companies to produce, and if an anti-toxicity collective participated in such a suit, they could utilize the damages in part to pay for a big media campaign to educate people about the effects of toxicity. From there, a consumer boycott could be another voluntary, non-State technique to "regulate" these chemicals."

I guess I should preface my reply by stating that I am profoundly toxified and reactive to chemicals. It's something that has affected every aspect of my life and has brought me an indescribable amount of pain. So when I talk about regulating toxins, I speak from a very emotional place. I don't want this shit to happen to anyone else.

I understand your reluctance to regulate things, the government hardly has a good track record on this subject. But chemicals are so ubiquitous and easy to hide, as Lou showed in a recent post. I'm not sure that liability suits and consumer boycotts are sufficient. It's just such a huge and deeply ingrained problem -- I don't see anything other than the force of law changing it quickly enough to prevent another generation of children from being turned into chemistry labs.

Another way of saying this is that corporations are so powerful these days that I can't see individuals being effective enough to contain their abuses. If corporate personhood were ended and 150 years of regulations protecting them from liability were rolled back, then I would agree with you -- individuals should be able to manage their own regulations. But the playing field is not level and I don't see it being leveled anytime soon, short of a complete collapse.

Because of this, as a matter of public policy I have no problem with the government declaring that certain substances are simply too toxic to be allowed on the market -- and that their use is an assault upon the community.

As an anarchist, I believe that all power centers are to be distrusted and made less powerful. But as a practical matter, that's not the world we live in. So as an anarchist, I believe that the second best thing to do is to use one power center (the government) to limit the abuses of another power center (toxic corporations). This is no more contradictory, in my mind, than using a diesel truck to haul building supplies to build a passive solar home in the woods. I believe in using the tools available to us in order to promote a more sane and sustainable world.

I also wanted to add that I really like this idea:

"Liability suits could then make it more costly for companies to produce, and if an anti-toxicity collective participated in such a suit, they could utilize the damages in part to pay for a big media campaign to educate people about the effects of toxicity."

I appreciate the discussion, thank you.