> The mechanism you described only really works with short term safety issues.
The mechanism I described works for employment issues, because employees can choose not to take a job and more dangerous jobs carry a risk premium that both employers and employees have the incentive to reduce when reasonable safety measures are available.
With leaded gasoline and CFCs the victims have no option to refuse, and it's completely legitimate to prohibit harms and risks imposed on other people without their consent.
For some reason you’re making the assumption that most employees are as capable of estimating this premium as well as their employers and/or that it’s even possible to estimate this risk in advance?
If it's not possible to estimate the risk in advance then how is the legislature supposed to do it? If only the employers and not the employees know of the risk then who is going to advocate for a law? And in the latter case the employer would presumably have liability for knowingly exposing people to something harmful without informing them of the risk.
The mechanism I described works for employment issues, because employees can choose not to take a job and more dangerous jobs carry a risk premium that both employers and employees have the incentive to reduce when reasonable safety measures are available.
With leaded gasoline and CFCs the victims have no option to refuse, and it's completely legitimate to prohibit harms and risks imposed on other people without their consent.