You answered my point, how a free market approach to labor fails to sufficiently account for hazardous working conditions, with a set of truisms: such working c

You answered my point, how a free market approach to labor fails to sufficiently account for hazardous working conditions, with a set of truisms: such working conditions exist, it costs to address them, and that there is incentive to avoid those costs. Different systems distribute power differently, and rest on different underlying morals. There is an incentive for workers to avoid health costs. There is an incentive for capitalists to avoid labor and production costs. In a system where people and their labor are treated like a commodity the same as rice or sugar, and there is an oversupply, guess which incentive wins? If you view people as things, as commodities like rice and sugar, then just like those commodities the more people there are, the less they are "worth". Should we value people in this way? If more people are born, should my life be less protected? If the number of people born with the genes and/or the environment to produce neurosurgeons halves, should neurosurgeons get double (or more) the social, economic and political power?