Have you ever heard of externalization? This is when a portion of the cost of producing a good or service is put on a third party without their consent.
"Without their consent", and often also, without their objection. Governments shouldn't have free reign to be the sole judges of when the third party is objecting. And the U.S. government doesn't, according to the 9th and 10th amendments.
I had a boss that told me he used to dump all his used coolants into the river out behind the building. It would have cost him $1000s to dispose of them properly, but instead he put that cost on the communities that surround the river. Sure he was able to maximize his profit and sell his product at the lowest price possible... but at what cost to others who did not agree to bear the cost of producing his goods?
That's an individual, one-on-one case that should be decided on an individual basis. What often figures in on cases like that though, is that the owner knows it only costs $500's to "dispose of it properly", while the other $500's goes into some special interest's pocket, like a politician or bureaucrat. Individual cases like that are much less controversial than others concerning freedoms, like all-encompassing auto emissions testing for example. (4th amendment)
Sure we can have cheap energy, but at what cost to third parties? Do coal miners agree to contract black lung when they take the job? Do we all agree to destroy our natural landscapes to allow the cheapest extraction of resources as possible? Do cities agree to smog and air pollution in order for factories to produce goods at the lowest cost possible?
People, not government should decide these issues. 10th amendment again.
We don't agree to those things. One role of government is to protect the freedoms of the many from the freedoms of individuals. I think a good example is public smoking. I respect the rights of individuals to smoke, but when I go into a restaurant and the people at the table next to me are smoking, I am forced to share in that - without my consent (some may say I give consent by going to the restaurant, but there is nothing inherent about going to a restaurant that implies partaking in cigarette smoke). Fortunately, our state legislature decided to protect the communities right to go to public spaces and not smoke over the individuals right to smoke. People who smoke may not agree with my assessment here, and may feel like their individual freedoms have been restricted, but communities need to find this balance between individual freedoms and the freedoms of the community as a whole. People are still free to smoke, just not where it compromises other's freedom to not smoke.
I've sure been on both sides of that issue, I used to smoke and I loved it. Now I'm old and I've quit and am less tolerant of smoke. Smokers and non-smokers used to be able to coexist - the tolerance went both ways. Maybe smokers started not caring who they bothered, maybe non-smokers were jealous of them enjoying it. Probably a combination of both.
Anyone gets in my car with me and wants to smoke, and I say "sure, just put your window down a little and be considerate. I'll live".
Given a free hand, corporations will, without a doubt, externalize as much of the cost of producing their goods as possible to third parties. History proves that. Thus it is a major role of government to protect the public from excessive externalization. The BIG LIE of conservatives is that free markets will self correct and eliminate exploitation of these third parties.
Free markets aren't perfect. But in most cases, they self correct better than a government that has less accountability for it's actions. Governments by nature, don't have the accountability for their actions that those in free markets do.
™ Version 4.2
(1)