Blagnet.net

Home air fascism

The December 14, 2007 edition of NPR’s “Science Friday” with Ira Flatow was a veritable orgy of statolatrist megalomania and top-rate fodder for libertarian ranting.

Their topic during the hour in question was toxins in the air in our homes. You can listen to the entire hour here (click the play button under “Listen” in the right column).

Flatow’s guests were Richard Corsi, professor at UT-Austin and Director of the Indoor Environmental Science and Engineering Program; and Paul Blanc, UCSF professor and author of How Everyday Products Make People Sick.

Flatow starts off the hour saying that according to an EPA study, the levels of some pollutants inside our homes may be worse than the fresh air outside; and if the toxin levels in our homes were regulated as strictly as our work spaces—indeed, regulated at all—most of our homes would be declared unfit to live in.

Now, I don’t know what State restrictions on homes and home-building exist, but I want to begin by conceding that this is one example of where less regulation doesn’t necessarily engender better results for consumers. That is, ignoring its immoral, evil means entirely, and furthermore ignoring the unintendend consequences that workspace regulation may have caused, the State has produced something good in the world that the (relatively more) free market hasn’t. I don’t know why, and I don’t know what deeper issues are in play, but keep in mind that libertarians don’t and shouldn’t claim that everything would always be better for everyone in every way in a free society. Maybe things like cleaner home and work air would take longer for the market to enforce than for the State to enforce.

With that out of the way, this hour of radio truly disgusted me. It was appalling. These two State-worshiping professors couldn’t mention enough things that existed because of the absence of State intervention and couldn’t recommend enough socialist and fascist solutions to their real and imagined problems.

Corsi lists some chemicals that are at higher levels inside than outside, levels that are higher than federal work space regulations allow: benzene, styrene, toluene. He says some others are lower indoors, like ozone. Flatow prompts him to say that if these regulations applied to our homes, we would not be allowed to work in our homes.

Then the two guests actually say things that make me a little forgiving. Corsi hedges, saying, yes, in some instances and for some chemicals, that’s true. Then Paul Blanc, from UCSF, chimes in, saying, “Of course, that assumes that somebody would actually enforce the workplace rules. And with the number of inspectors we have, it would take them another hundred years to get to every person’s workplace. So sometimes things are put in those terms, but it shouldn’t be taken to belittle the true and real hazards that exist in the workplace.”

While he could be fear-mongering to garner support for his positions, advocating that many more inspectors and many more millions of dollars be directed towards actually enforcing workplace standards, he (inadvertently, no doubt) reinforces the libertarian position that the costs of enforcing such a fascist nationwide policy far exceed the benefits. It also brings up an important side-effect of hypothetical home-air regulations: it would allow for federal agents to enter our homes to inspect the air as they please. Given the propensity of State agents to abuse their power and always clamor for more, and given the national-security-obsessed mindset that rules Washington, I would make the purely utilitarian case for the libertarian position that no such home-air regulations should be considered.

It gets better as we get into the interview. Blanc explains how sequential use of “regular, old household bleach” and other cleaning chemicals—not even combining them like an idiot, but using one and then later another, for whatever reason—can produce chlorine gas and other harmful gases. Corsi adds to that, saying that the use of dishwasher detergents with sodium hypochlorite chlorine (I think that’s what he said) produces chloroform that escapes from the dishwasher during and after the wash.

Flatow asks, But don’t we regulate these things, by putting skull and crossbones on them and making it illegal to use them in a dangerous way?!

Paul Blanc responds that the main government agency responsible for the safety of such home items, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, brings “ineffectiveness to a new level with each succeeding year.” It was responsible for letting Chinese toys with lead into the market and for approving of “air purifiers” that are better dubbed “ozone generators.” Excuse me if I put words into their mouths, but their words and their demeanors seem to indicate that their solution is…wait for it…to give this and other agencies more tax dollars and more power because they failed!

As part of their discussion of these non-air-purifying ozone generators, Blanc opines, “Well, there’s also, I think, a larger societal issue, which is, do we want a system where each person is on their own, where they have to somehow purify the indoor air and purify the water that comes through the faucet, or would we rather have public-health-protective standards where we make sure you’re not bringing products into the home which can muddy the air that you breathe, or that you have, for some reason, an inability to open the window and get the air that’s around you because of hazards.”

Siiiiiigggghhhhhhh… How many times will libertarians have to go through this? Just because we don’t want something accomplished by coercion doesn’t mean we don’t want it done at all. The water issue is a no-brainer: of course private supply of water would result in less waste and cleaner, cheaper water. As for clean air indoors and out, I think most libertarians, and courts in a free society, would hold that harmfully polluted air is an aggression against a person’s body, and that everyone has a right for the air in/on/around their property to not be polluted by someone else, and that the polluter has violated the victim’s private property rights (your body is your first and foremost proprietal possession). I admit this is a more difficult issue, especially in the area of enforcement, that, as Rothbard has written, would be better solved by the actual enforcement of private property rights instead of enforcement of government fiats, and by the abolition of exemptions and legal protection that are sold to companies with enough money to buy them from politicians.

The next focus of the show is, naturally: Well, what can we do about it? How can we know if there are high levels of toxins in my air? Where do they come from? They don’t give a ton of detailed answers, but for this discussion, let me quote Paul Blanc yet again: “And if I wanted to bring home certain substances…if I was an idiot, I couldn’t do it, because I wouldn’t be allowed to buy it and it wouldn’t be on the marketplace. So, requiring people to have so much knowledge is not the safest way of going. You shouldn’t have to have a degree in chemistry before you go down the aisles of your supermarket.”

Flatow: “So what should we do, then?”

Blanc: “Part of it should be restricted sales of certain materials. …I’ll give you an example: We’ve seen commercials for glues that it takes two trucks to pull apart the handle after you’ve reglued it. I mean, what societal purpose is that really serving, if I can be so bold as to ask?”

Unadulterated economic fascism! He is so bold as to suggest that well-intentioned intelligentsia such as his ilk should be in a position of authority over the entire nation, to herd us like sheep away from any dangerous or unwise decisions. The answer to the (real or imagined) problems of society is more coercion, more extraction of tax dollars, more intrusion of the State into our private lives, more oversight, more regulation, more restriction—less freedom!

Several astute quotes come to mind:

The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom. —Ludwig von Mises

One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation. —Thomas Brackett Reed

Absolute power corrupts even when exercised for humane purposes. The benevolent despot who sees himself as a shepherd of the people still demands from others the submissiveness of sheep. —Eric Hoffer

Safety, not freedom or prosperity, are these men’s goals, but the libertarian sees that an important thing like safety is only likely to exist to any appreciable degree in a free society. Safety and freedom are not mutually exclusive! Blanc, Corsi, and Flatow all seem to think they are, but as history and the science of economics has shown, governments have clamored for more power to ensure our safety for millennia and ignored, overlooked, or suppressed the fact that freedom and capitalism could produce it much better!

So, I recommend listening to it, at least from the middle to the end, where they recommend steps we can take, such as being aware that new furniture and carpet (such as you might put in your nrewborn baby’s room) might emit toxins, avoiding going anywhere near an “air purifier” (ozone generator), not burning too many scented candles or incense (!), not using perfumes and colognes and hairsprays that are too strong, avoiding too-strong (industrial-strength) chemicals or combining strong cleaners (even sequentially), and opening your windows when you can. They said use common sense and trust your nose (but don’t necessarily rely on it). I thought this part was pretty helpful.

Another honest critique of the free market: I don’t know of any “air toxin inspecting” services that exist out there and I don’t know of any State restrictions that should limit their existence or proliferation. It isn’t like this service is provided for by the State, such as mail delivery or water-pollution inspection, and, like I said, I don’t know why it couldn’t exist. Home inspectors certainly exist, for potential buyers of houses, and there is a company I used to hear commercials for on WSB radio that would inspect and clean out your heating & air ducts (because apparently the builders can leave some crap in those and they can just build up dust and other particulate junk over the years, blowing it into your lungs). Maybe the reason is that, like Paul Corsi said, we don’t know a lot about the levels, sources, and harmfulness of these various airborne toxins and the public isn’t extremely educated about this issue in general. Maybe if they were, they would clamor for State regulation of it.

In our world when we become aware of a real or imagined problem, we cry for the State to make it alright. In a free society, we would rely on entrepreneurs to innovate voluntary, non-coercive solutions because our minds wouldn’t be so corrupted by the State.

Lastly, on a related and hopefully useful note, about two years ago I read about NASA scientist Bill Wolverton and his studies on the air-cleansing capabilities of common houseplants. This resulted, in part, in his publication of the book How to Grow Fresh Air: 50 House Plants That Purify Your Home or Office. I think a lot of those plants are actually difficult to find, but some of them, such as golden pothos, Boston fern, Dracaena, and a few others I can’t remember are abundant, cheap, and useful.