Thread: When life gives you lemons, better get a permit

Originally Posted by MindGames

For anyone arguing that people shouldn't be able to sell their own food and drinks just because they haven't been inspected by some agency, think about this:

Let's say we lived in a world where anybody could sell whatever the fuck they wanted, be it lemonade, bagels, or whatever (I'll only focus on foods for the purpose of the discussion), without any permits or regulation. How long do you think it would take for the free market to realize that you shouldn't buy food from sketchy ass strangers on the side of the road? If people get sick or start being poisoned from eating the food they bought from these vendors, then first of all, no shit, who would have ever thought that you might not be getting the best quality product from some unknown vendor without a reputation? Once people start to realize that they have to look out for themselves, these types of vendors will go out of business anyway since they can't be trusted, especially when there are better, more reputable options to choose from (which there should be plenty of in a pure free market).

So you want a reactionary system where businesses are punished only after they've made people sick (or dead)...

Originally Posted by Spartiate

So you want a reactionary system where businesses are punished only after they've made people sick (or dead)...

Yes, a reactionary system just like when any person breaks the law. The solution isn't for the government to get up in everyone's business to see if they're doing anything wrong; people should simply be punished if they're proven guilty of harming other people. Businesses are in fact run by people, after all. If businesses kill their customers, the owners should be tried in court like any other individual would be. If they make their customers sick, the customers could sue that business. Obviously it's in the business' best interests not to kill their customers. I would even make a compromise and say the states should make their own laws concerning businesses. If states do their own regulating (as opposed to federal regulations), at least the citizens have more control over what laws get passed since their representatives are closer to home.

The idea behind a pure free market is that it regulates itself. If a restaurant serves tainted food and gets sued, people will obviously stop going to that restaurant. If the restaurant doesn't serve its customers well, customers will simply choose the competition. Eventually, you'll end up with a market dominated by the businesses that serve the best quality products. You'll even start to see people creating organizations which ensure quality and safety standards for the customer.


A free market can't mature however, if the government tries to control and regulate everything in it. I bet if people could sell products and services without having to hire a lawyer to tell them how to set everything up, what not to do and what paperwork to sign, we would have much more market activity and a healthier economy.

Originally Posted by MindGames

Yes, a reactionary system just like when any person breaks the law. The solution isn't for the government to get up in everyone's business to see if they're doing anything wrong; people should simply be punished if they're proven guilty of harming other people. Businesses are in fact run by people, after all. If businesses kill their customers, the owners should be tried in court like any other individual would be. If they make their customers sick, the customers could sue that business. Obviously it's in the business' best interests not to kill their customers. I would even make a compromise and say the states should make their own laws concerning businesses. If states do their own regulating (as opposed to federal regulations), at least the citizens have more control over what laws get passed since their representatives are closer to home.

The idea behind a pure free market is that it regulates itself. If a restaurant serves tainted food and gets sued, people will obviously stop going to that restaurant. If the restaurant doesn't serve its customers well, customers will simply choose the competition. Eventually, you'll end up with a market dominated by the businesses that serve the best quality products. You'll even start to see people creating organizations which ensure quality and safety standards for the customer.


A free market can't mature however, if the government tries to control and regulate everything in it. I bet if people could sell products and services without having to hire a lawyer to tell them how to set everything up, what not to do and what paperwork to sign, we would have much more market activity and a healthier economy.

Wouldn't a proactive system where nobody has to die in the first place be better? That's what regulations are all about.

The law is not purely reactionary. Who have you hurt when you are caught speeding?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Wouldn't a proactive system where nobody has to die in the first place be better? That's what regulations are all about.

The law is not purely reactionary. Who have you hurt when you are caught speeding?

Obviously if someone's in a situation where you can reasonably say they're an immediate danger to other people's right to life, then they should be stopped. It's only in these cases where we have to use precautionary laws. The free trade of food is not reasonably dangerous to the public. Also, going back to the lemonade stand example, if somebody poisons your food then that's simply attempted murder, not the result of having a free market. And if people start dying after buying food from sketchy merchants on the side of the road, guess what will happen? People will stop buying food from them. The idiots who keep on taking candy from strangers deserve to get weeded out anyway; I know it's blunt, but the rest of civilization doesn't have an obligation to babysit them just because they can't take care of themselves.

You're also forgetting about the fact that if the free market wants health and safety regulations, it can set up those regulations on its own without resorting to increasing the size of government. I'm sure a free market version of the FDA would do a much better job than a government FDA, since the survival of a free market version is directly subjected to the satisfaction of the consumer, and it would be subjected to competition as well.

Originally Posted by MindGames

The free trade of food is not reasonably dangerous to the public.

Seriously? How many deaths do you think some contaminated food processing equipment could cause?

Lets use another example, how would you feel if airlines weren't subject to safety regulations? When you sit down and put your seatbelt on, do you really want to be rolling the dice as to whether or not you're going to be the lucky guy who gets to sway the opinion of the free market?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Seriously? How many deaths do you think some contaminated food processing equipment could cause?

Lets use another example, how would you feel if airlines weren't subject to safety regulations? When you sit down and put your seatbelt on, do you really want to be rolling the dice as to whether or not you're going to be the lucky guy who gets to sway the opinion of the free market?

How would you feel about having private(or public I suppose) certification that was not mandatory? That way people who want to be sure they are getting a safe product or safe airfare can have it and those who don't care can also have what they want.

Not sure if this has been brought up, I haven't read all of this.