What would a libertarian do?

The outrage over the Upper Branch Mine Disaster in West Virginia is profound even almost two weeks after the horrific event. One of the first instincts driven by outrage is to clamp down more tightly,more rules, greater punishment,so this won't happen again. The reaction is utterly understandable. One needs to look no further than the families and loved ones of the 29 miners to leap in that direction.

 But as much as the outrage is legitimate and the desire to clamp down is understandable, clamping down harder will not necessarily reduce the probability of another such disaster.

 To understand why, we need to understand why disasters happen. Because the facts are not yet clear in the Upper Branch disaster—and there is undoubtedly litigation to follow—I will use other examples to illustrate. Disasters can happen for two entirely different reasons: error and cover up of error.

Contrast this with another disaster, an e-coli outbreak in the water system of a small Ontario town about a decade ago that killed seven people and sickened hundreds more, some of whom will live with terrible side-effects for the rest of their lives. The reason that the seven died is that a chlorinator in the town's central water system failed and the general manager of the public water utility knew that the chlorinator had failed.

 Tragically, not only did he do nothing about it, he both falsified the water readings coming out of the failed chlorinator and when questioned early in the disaster by the Medical Officer of Health, denied that there was any problem in the water system. Had the general manager phoned the Medical Officer of Health the minute the chlorinator failed, the Officer would have gone door to door in the town to issue a boiled water warning and nobody would have died or been sickened. So in this case, error (break down of the chlorinator) was not the problem: cover up of the error was the killer.

Now, as yourself this, what would a libertarian do in these instances? To clarify, a libertarian believes that the role of any Government should be to protect the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and property and that nobody should interfere with those rights. Based on this definition, government would not have any authority to regulate the agencies mentioned above to ensure they are operating safely. No independent group would be permitted to ensure the air quality isn’t being damaged due to their operations, or that the water supply for communities isn’t being contaminated by run-off. Does this serve the greatest good for the greatest number, or is it all about the individual?

http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/apr2010/ca20100420_479716.htm