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

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?

To answer your question, I bet it could cause quite a few deaths, and it's happened in the past. I'm sure that the free market would have more incentive to make sure that their equipment is sterilized when their primary concern is making sure their product is superior to their competition's, as opposed to satisfying arbitrary regulations put in place by the government. You're also forgetting that the free market could set up their own health and safety regulation organizations.

Also, if the free market wants safety regulations for airlines, then the free market will answer that call. Otherwise, airlines will go out of business from the lack of business. It's actually really simple; the free market regulates itself, through its democratic nature. Consumers vote with their dollars.

Originally Posted by MindGames

To answer your question, I bet it could cause quite a few deaths, and it's happened in the past. I'm sure that the free market would have more incentive to make sure that their equipment is sterilized when their primary concern is making sure their product is superior to their competition's, as opposed to satisfying arbitrary regulations put in place by the government. You're also forgetting that the free market could set up their own health and safety regulation organizations.

Also, if the free market wants safety regulations for airlines, then the free market will answer that call. Otherwise, airlines will go out of business from the lack of business. It's actually really simple; the free market regulates itself, through its democratic nature. Consumers vote with their dollars.

A company's primary concern is maximum profit, not making a superior product. Trust me when I say that many businesses have no qualms in sacrificing safety or quality to achieve that goal, especially if the consumer would be unaware. The regulations are rarely arbitrary, they usually come to be after an incident to prevent similar incidents in the future.

The free market regulates itself after the fact. It's a stupid system that would cause unnecessary suffering, injury or death.

How can a company maximize revenue in the free market other than by providing a superior product or service? I'd hardly say that getting sued over providing customers with unsafe food is a successful business model. If consumers want a low quality product, (aka "Taco Bell") then why shouldn't they be able to get it? It's their money, right?

In the end, whatever the consumers demand, in a pure free market, they will get it, since corporations can only maximize revenue by satisfying their customers. If the customers demand to know what's in their food, or if they demand certain health and quality standards be put in place, corporations will have to meet those demands or else lose their business to the competition that does satisfy these demands.

Government regulations only discourage people from starting up their own businesses, thus providing less competition for consumers to choose from, and therefore lower quality products and services. Not to mention the fact that they take money from everyone whether they like it or not.


Also, calling a system "stupid" is hardly a valid argument.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

The regulations are rarely arbitrary, they usually come to be after an incident to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Ah okay, so the FDA is a superior organization for this reason.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

The free market regulates itself after the fact.

Wait wut?

Originally Posted by MindGames

How can a company maximize revenue in the free market other than by providing a superior product or service? I'd hardly say that getting sued over providing customers with unsafe food is a successful business model. If consumers want a low quality product, (aka "Taco Bell") then why shouldn't they be able to get it? It's their money, right?

How do IKEA or chinese toy manufacturers outperform small businesses that usually show superior craftsmanship? Price point, marketing... Businesses have every right to put out a cheaper product until the point of where it compromises public safety or confidence.

In the end, whatever the consumers demand, in a pure free market, they will get it, since corporations can only maximize revenue by satisfying their customers. If the customers demand to know what's in their food, or if they demand certain health and quality standards be put in place, corporations will have to meet those demands or else lose their business to the competition that does satisfy these demands.

How do you know that the plane you're flying on has been maintained properly? The airline could be slacking off on safety and you'd never know about it. How do you know if your food's been prepared in sanitary conditions... until you get sick? Businesses can cut corners and operate in a risky manner (and save money) and no one would suspect a thing until their luck runs out. Regulators would shut these places down before anybody is harmed.

Government regulations only discourage people from starting up their own businesses, thus providing less competition for consumers to choose from, and therefore lower quality products and services. Not to mention the fact that they take money from everyone whether they like it or not.

A proper regulatory body discourages unsafe or dishonest business practises. Is more competition in the interest of public safety if there's no overseer? Maybe some regulators have become bloated and inefficient, but that's a call to reengineer them, not abandon them.

Also, calling a system "stupid" is hardly a valid argument.

It is if you explain why.

Ah okay, so the FDA is a superior organization for this reason.

I don't know what your hard-on with the FDA is but technology and business practises in every industry whether it be food, transportation, engineering or what have you, are constantly evolving. If issues with these new methods are only discovered after an incident has occurred, then at least regulators are in a position to make sure it doesn't happen again. Do you think they found these regulations in a glass bottle that washed ashore?

Wait wut?

*Plane crashes* "I won't fly with that airline"
*Tainted meat goes out and kills a dozen people* "I won't buy from that company"
*Investment firm defrauds thousands* "I won't invest with them"

People are harmed before any corrective action is taken, that's a reactionary system. The whole point of regulations is to prevent harm in the first place, doesn't that sound more appealing?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

How do IKEA or chinese toy manufacturers outperform small businesses that usually show superior craftsmanship? Price point, marketing... Businesses have every right to put out a cheaper product until the point of where it compromises public safety or confidence.

And this creates a superior product for the price it's sold at. Otherwise, consumers wouldn't buy it. Right? There's nothing wrong with this. If consumers want a lower quality product for a cheaper price, then by all means, let them. I have no problem with McDonalds, Walmart, or any other company that uses this approach. Companies still have to compete with others to provide the highest quality products possible. Who's to say another IKEA won't come along and offer toys at the same price point?

How do you know that the plane you're flying on has been maintained properly? The airline could be slacking off on safety and you'd never know about it. How do you know if your food's been prepared in sanitary conditions... until you get sick? Businesses can cut corners and operate in a risky manner (and save money) and no one would suspect a thing until their luck runs out. Regulators would shut these places down before anybody is harmed.

How do you currently know you're flying on a safe plane? Because regulations are put in place, correct? Haven't I already stated multiple times that the free market is capable of putting these regulations into place? Sure, companies don't have to follow these regulations, but if consumers see that an airline doesn't abide by safety regulations, then they should be able to choose an alternate airline that does.

A proper regulatory body discourages unsafe or dishonest business practises. Is more competition in the interest of public safety if there's no overseer? Maybe some regulators have become bloated and inefficient, but that's a call to reengineer them, not abandon them.

And what a better way to re-engineer these regulators than having them work directly for the free market? Let the free market decide what regulations it wants put into place.

I don't know what your hard-on with the FDA is but technology and business practises in every industry whether it be food, transportation, engineering or what have you, are constantly evolving. If issues with these new methods are only discovered after an incident has occurred, then at least regulators are in a position to make sure it doesn't happen again. Do you think they found these regulations in a glass bottle that washed ashore?

I was mainly referring to the FDA because they're the main organization that relates to the topic. Although I'd have to say that I'm not the one with a hard on for federal regulations here.

I mainly pointed this out to show that you yourself stated that the free market updates its regulations exactly the same way that government-mandated regulations are put into place. I wasn't asserting that regulations are updated through some other means.

*Plane crashes* "I won't fly with that airline"
*Tainted meat goes out and kills a dozen people* "I won't buy from that company"
*Investment firm defrauds thousands* "I won't invest with them"

People are harmed before any corrective action is taken, that's a reactionary system. The whole point of regulations is to prevent harm in the first place, doesn't that sound more appealing?

You seem completely oblivious to the fact that I've repeatedly pointed out that the free market is capable of regulating itself. All that needs to happen is for someone to capitalize on an organization that enforces regulations for the members of its organization. If the free market decides it wants these regulations, these organizations would have to compete just like any other company would have to compete. We would eventually end up with a much safer system with better regulations that doesn't have to leech off the tax dollars of the public.


Also, I hate having to respond to posts piece by piece. Screw you.

Ok personally I'd be happy with any regulatory committee - doesn't have to be governmental. As long as it works. I know what we have now is far from perfect but I'm still glad we have it. If a better committee could be created that doesn't run on tax dollars, that might be even better.

A causes bad thing. Therefore, measures ought to be taken to prevent A from causing bad thing. Sounds reasonable, though, having to do so would restrict our permitted code of conduct, and for some people that don't like to be controlled or see it as an inconvenience, are unlikely to accept such measures. Even so, in a ironic sense, such people may practice these preventative measures they dislike so much only to prevent the possible consequences that could happen if not followed. So, for some people at least, I think that preventative measures being a rational or good thing shouldn't be sold to them, for it's something they may already understand, but instead, they should be persuaded as to why a particular measure ought to be taken, in a different sense, even when they consider it to be intolerable.

-INFORMATION SET-

Now, debators, entertain me MORE!!!

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.

Spart, libertarians are not anarchists. If a company is endangering lives, they are breaking the law and will be dealt with.

Originally Posted by Xei

Spart, libertarians are not anarchists.

They can be. See Murray Rothbard and the like.

I'm pretty sure Xei meant libertarianism doesn't equate to anarchism, although some libertarians can be anarchists, and vice versa.