Let’s say I rob a group of rich people and then use the money to save victims dying of a famine. Did I do a good thing or a bad thing? Ethically, the ends should never justify the means. I cannot justify robbing some people to aid others. It is up to those wealthy people to decide to aid the others. I cannot do good by robbing any one.

The very root of libertarian philosophy is that no one possesses the power to act unethically. To enact and enforce regulation often requires the confiscation of property rightfully belonging to some or all citizens to pay for enforcement. We cannot judge the harm done by government confiscation of property as a necessary evil any more than I can justify robbing people of their property.

Many think his is not a question of absolutes, but one of degrees. Should more people be helped than hurt, an act might be judged as ethical. It is nearly impossible to defend this argument as it is nearly impossible to know all the harm done by any particular regulation. Any regulation of industry imposes a cost of freedom to all of us, so the addition of odor to natural gas hurts more than it helps. That it is imposed by force makes it unethical.

Government regulation of odor has not made natural gas any safer than it would have been made had regulations not been passed. All regulation of industry has unintended side effects and the odor regulations of 1937 were no exception. By regulating this part of the industry research shifted from what was best for leak detection and safety to what was the cheapest way to obey government regulations.

This is a constant pattern we see in government regulation of safety in industry. The shift of power from the recognized industry safety experts to that of politicians and commissions which may not be around or funded tomorrow.