jurisnatuarlist - I think we all know there are risks in life and we all except that. However if we are led to believe we are being protected and in actuality are not that is wrong. Just like thinking a police officer would stop someone from assaulting you instead of ignoring the situation.
But I give up, you win. You are right, its their own fault for working and assuming codes were being followed.

The people who died didn't all work there, they lived near the plant and continue to do so. I am sure they didn't have a say in it's building nor could they just pick up and move.
Why are these type of plants built where they are, because the people have little say or power.

What if i am standing on the sidewalk and somebody decides to drive up on my side of the street and hit me, or if I stay home and they crash into my house?

Fault? If you really have to blame someone, blame God. No one wanted this accident to happen. No matter how safe you make something, there remains some probability that an accident can happen.
Businesses only exist to satisfy their customers. If you are not happy with a firm, by all means stop buying from them, and feel free to start a boycott. Voluntary action along these lines is to be applauded. It is part of what keeps firms disciplined.
Businesses are constrained by their reputation and profitability. They have no other obligations. (At least they should not.)
I subject the firms to only market forces, because market forces are the most brutal. They are unforgiving. If you do something bad, you get destroyed. Even if you do something good but your competitor does better you get destroyed. Why do you assume that market forces are somehow less compelling than political forces?
Jesus does not say very much against business actually. He identifies hording of wealth as vanity. He actually has more to say about manipulating the political process, and about how His disciples should work through subversion instead.
Only Christians are capable of being anything other than ultra-individualistic. So only we have that responsibility.
Or do you not think that you are regenerate as a result of salvation? That's a wonderful theological conversation we could have.
I believe the pollution issues are really property rights problems. The problem is that polluters damage property that is not their own. Of course they should have to pay for that. But I don't believe we should stop using coal. Our environment is a good deal cleaner than it was 20 years ago.
I'm beginning to believe that environmentalist arguments are the new reductio ad Hitlerium.
The way many people throw Hitler into an argument to win the conversation, people are now throwing environmentalism into arguments as a rhetorical tactic. I think that's a shame, because it distracts people from the issue they were discussing, and effectively shuts down communication.

Of course they did not want to die! Do you?
Have you ever crossed the street? You could have been hit by a car!!!! No matter how careful you are there is some probability that you could have been hit. But you crossed anyway because the probability was low. Multiply the probability times the benefit you get from crossing the street. If this is more valuable to you than staying on this side of the street then you will cross.
Make the street a superhighway. Will you cross now? NO! Why? The probability of getting hit is higher. What if you were offered $100 million? Would you attempt it then? Maybe not you, but someone would. Should we not let them??? I'm not ready to assume the parental role over free adults.
As for the India example, you say the firm is still profitable? That must mean that workers still consider it worth the risk to go work for them, despite the accident. Perhaps they also weigh the likelihood that their families will receive some compensation if they are hurt. That's fair.

Is Jack in the box still dangerous? Did they put the Ecoli in there on purpose? did the existing government regulatory agency catch it?
No.
Accidents happen, and when they do it is not an excuse to say, "there oughta be a law."
The competitive marketplace ensures that firms do not want to hurt their customers and employees. Wherever there is regulation, there is less competition, and so it is actually more likely for accidents to happen because the market discipline is gone.

So, to sum up. It was the victim's fault they are dead. The company holds no responsibility whatsoever. Even though they broke the law.

If businesses don't have to take personal responsibility for their actions, why should any of us? Businesses can apparently act freely and do whatever they want, regardless of how it affects others, as long as they gain a profit. It is up to us to stop them by not buying their product.

Do you make the same argument for individuals? If an individual hurts someone, are they not responsible for the harm they did to that person? Should they not be held to account and brought to justice? If so, why do businesses get a free pass? Why is it market forces are the only form of justice they should be subjected to? Businesses can do far more harm that individuals can on a far grander and longer lasting scale.

So we let these huge behemoths of business who have no obligation to have any moral standards whatsoever run the world. But it's OK, because our market forces will keep these soul-less beings in check...except when they don't.

Take the coal mines for example. Market forces should drive us away from coal because the market should recognize the inherent dangers to people and the environment as the result of coal mining practices. But they don't. They don't recognize it because the only people who truly understand the dangers are those who live in coal mining districts who see their watersheds poisoned and toxic waste bury their river valley when holding ponds from mountain top mining fail. But they are incredibly impoverished people, and without money, they have no voice. And would anyone who benefits from the cheap energy their sacrificed environment provides even pay attention anyway? So market forces fail, and people's lives are lost under the crush of the almighty corporation. But as long as we have cheap energy and profits are made, it's all good. They should just move, afterall. Business is far more important than their needs or lives.

Where is Christ in your theology? Where does He exalt business and corporation and power and might over the lowly forgotten of the world? Where does He say "don't worry about these people--they either need to make better choices or the communities' capitalistic will will fix any problems they are having."

Ultra-individualism leads down a path where we don't care about anyone but our own self-interests. And this is in no way a Christlike position.

Do we believe the mine workers wanted to die? 57 violations seems to suggest the owners were playing the odds. Massey Energy has moe than one mine, even if they are culpable they will still remain in business. Look at what happened in India with Dow/Union Carbide in Bhopal, the death toll conservatively is 15,000. They paid out 470million dollars in theory. As far as I know Dow is still a viable multibillion dollar company. They were neglegent, did they want 15000 people to die? I doubt it Just like a drunk driver that kills someone, did they want some one to die, probably not, does it make them less responsible?

SUre just like Jack in the Box went out of business for having E-coli in their hamburger meat and people died, or the spinach company or the peanut butter companies that had E-coli. How about tylenol, glad they aren't still around.
Thalidomide- read about it. Without the FDA other or more drugs may have been approved for general consumption that cause similar effects. But buyer beware right? So you're child has a birth defect, you learned not to use their product again and they went out of business. http://scienceinsociety.northwestern.edu/content/articles/2009/research-digest/thalidomide/title-tba

Right, which is another reason why regulations might actually create more unsafe conditions than pure "buyer beware" behavior.
When people feel they are protected by the government they let their guards down, and make less than reasonable decisions about risks involved in various activities. But the government is not big enough (yet) to monitor every risky situation. When the man on the spot is wary, he is more likely to know when the risk is not worth it.

Then they should move.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that mining is the only occupation available to individuals who have liberty to move anywhere within these 50 states to look for work.
It might have been the most lucrative job they could find. It might have paid better than any other alternative, and cost of living may be lower in WV. That is just to say that miners make a reasonable decision when they chose to remain miners, and that they take the relevant risks into consideration when making that decision.

Then the miners should move, or share housing, or do something else. No one has a right to the job that they want where they want it at the wage they think they deserve.
Do we really all believe that the mine owner wanted this accident to happen???
The owners lose here, too! They lose a ton of money, reputation, and PR. The way people are talking about it here is as though this accident were malicious.
It was an ACCIDENT!

No, the safer widget should not be mandated.
Part of the pay the worker receives is a premium for working in risky conditions. Mandate the new coupler and their wages fall.
This might be okay, or it might not. If the cost to the RR for the new couplers is greater than what they have to pay in premium wages, then it is not a good move. If the cost is less than the age premium than it is a good move, and too bad to the worker who is now getting paid less.
Such a mandate would punish the better workers, who knew how to do the job without getting hurt, and give an unfair advantage to less careful workers, who might be willing to earn less.
I oppose government regulation in general.

Good argument, information costs can be expensive, and spending time and energy to discover a safe ketchup could prevent me from buying any. But, there is the market mechanism of reputation which does the same job as government regulation.
If someone gets sick eating Heinz, then Heinz will go out of business because people will buy another brand of Ketchup.
The market provides the relevant information at much lower cost than government monitoring could.
Ever heard of underwriters laboratories? Look under your alarm clock. There's a UL in a circle under there. That means that UL tested your clock and found it to be safe. Good government agency, right?
Except it is not a government agency, it is a private firm, with a good reputation, which producers voluntarily send products to for their mark of safety.
The market works.

"Do you really think we are not responsible for anyone else but yourself in this world?"
Oh, great point!
I think that each person is responsible for themselves. Then I also believe that we, as Christians, and only Christians, have a responsibility to care for others beyond what lies in our own personal interest or empathy. If a bunch of Christians want to get together and pay to make the mine safer, fine (though I suspect it might result in reduced wages to the miners, since the premium they are paid for risky behavior will be less). My contention has to do with the use of government to achieve positive good in the world. I just don't see it.
You might point to numerous examples of good the government has done, but I will contend, compared to what?
If the same good could have been done privately or through the church, and was instead done by the government, they I will suspect that the voluntary institution would have achieved it more efficiently. So, use of the government was actually harmful.
Again, the company should only have to do whatever they want. If no workers want to work there, then the mining company will go out of business, if they want to stay in business then they will have to make the mine safe enough for people to be willing to work there. Apparently this mine met that criteria since there were workers there.
I have agreed that if there were coercion or fraud that this was a crime.
Is it a crime to offer people skydiving adventures? "Here is a risky behavior. Sometimes people die when they try to do this. We will provide enough safety to make it attractive for you to try it anyway."
People still do it. Whose fault is it when someone dies skydiving?
in your murder example there is an explicit use of force and coercion. No one forced the miners to go to work.

If Massey has a reputation, then the workers were informed.

Not yet - at present my computer runs on a blend of hydro-electricity, wind-electricity and natural gas generated electricity. But I hope soon it will run exclusively on solar electricity.

What about your computer?

Coal contaminates everything it touches:
water, air and the environment;
corporate ethics;
West Virginia politics;
West Virginia's judicial system;
The United States Congress;
and 3 miners die every day from black lung disease.

"Clean coal" is another oxymoron.

Did you use a solar computer to post here?

There should be a thorough, and I mean thorough investigation of this tragedy. If it is found that the explosion could have been avoided if Massey had followed safety regulations, then those in charge of safety for Massey should be charged with 25 counts of negligent homicide. And if someone higher up gave the order that those safety regulations should be ignored, then that person should be charged. As long as it is cheaper to pay the fine than it is to follow the safety regulation, then the regulation will be ignored.

"For the simple reason that American workers have a broad variety of other employment opportunities than Chinese workers do, and at better wages. "

Not in the vicinity of the mine in question, they don't.

"Gary Williams, a miner and pastor of New Life Assembly, a church near the mine, told AP there is always risk associated with coal mines.

"It's not something you dread every day, but there's always that danger. But for this area, it's the only way you're going to make a living," Williams said."

http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=32643

Your argument completely ignores the economic realities of parts of the country with chronically depressed economies.