ALL regulations, statutory, contractual and case laws are all built upon the fundamentals of property rights, contract enforcement and fraud protection (or at least they should be, in theory- again, I fully agree that there are abuses of these powers). But those concepts are just that- fundamental. As trade grows more and more complex and new contractual disputes arise, regulations and laws are built to address the intricacies of those situations. This is the problem that I have with the 100% free market system. It reduces everything to the absolute lowest common denominator, and speaks on a purely philosophical level, without addressing the complexities of the market that exist within individual industries. It doesn't address how our court and legislature system is supposed deal with those intricacies. I'm not opposed to a market economy. I've said many times, I'm very much a capitalist. I completely agree that there are many regulations that exist that entirely favor big business. I'm in favor of regulations that protect the consumer, by adding some balance to the system of trade. By consumer, I don't just mean the average man or woman on the street. I also mean smaller businesses that utilize the goods and services of larger businesses. The larger the business, the more resources they have to counter your negative reviews, to fight your contract in court, and squash any/all complaints you might have. When the onus is entirely upon the consumer, and Caveat Emptor rules the day.
Penelope your still thinking of the status quo rather than what a true free market economy would look like. The reason companies there seem to be only a few big companies that are unresponsive to consumers is that, they have little competition. Why do they have little competition? Because the barriers to enter the market are too high. Making it extremely hard for an entrepreneur or a small business to compete with a big business. There would be no regulations holding small business back for the benefit of Big Business. Taxes would be extremely low freeing up more money for people to invest in a business of their own. Money would appreciate in value rather than suffer inflation like we do now. The status quo would be completely obliterated in a free market economy.
But that's the thing, it's an economic theory. There is no real history that can be applied today because history is changing and there are always different variables to have to account for. And even then, you'll probably get it wrong, only to repeat the same deductions and same conflicting ideas.
I'm not defending the status quo. I'm discussing the theory behind regulatory law, not arguing in favor every goddamn regulation that exists on the books. The discussion is just far more complicated then you are making it. Not all regulations favor big business. Some do, many do not. In some cases favoring big business is actually beneficial, if not crucial to maintaining our infrastructure. Our energy grid is a perfect example. Our grid is going to far more stable with large producers of energy, then with a bunch of little enterprises. An unstable energy grid would trickle down into every other aspect of our lives. Business- large and small- would not be able to exist without a reliable energy supply. Again, I'm not opposed a free market or capitalism, I just think discussing a pure free market is about as useful as a philosophical discussion on unicorns. Neither exists or ever will exist.
bullshit, in for a penny in for a pound. all regulations hurt the market. but some consumers tolerate the higher prices and slow delivery due to perceived value. what is wrong with letting people make their own decisions about the value of a widget, or the company that provides it, and letting stupid people who make stupid decisions suffer the just rewards of their own poor decisions?
If I'm just defending the status quo, then all you are doing is parroting free market philosophy you've read on the internet. What real world experience do you have with a truly free market? Our market and economy involves a lot more then just "widgets".
i try to engage in a pure free market every chance i get. i am a licensed contractor, i play the game i am required to. but i jump with both feet every chance i get to to trades and cash gigs. i even told a guy once that i would work for gold. my word is my warranty and if something goes wrong with one of my projects it is me, not an employee, not a lawyer that will fix the issue. l live the free market as much as i am allowed to....well more really. if L&I found out how i run my business i would probably loose my license and maybe go to jail. and then there is the pot...which is a mostly free market....with state sanctioned pirates with badges. always gotta look out for the pirates, which is true in any endeavor. and i am not accusing you of defending the status quo. but i think it a bit disingenuous to say the market is too complex for the simplistic ideals of the free market. a purely free market would free the people as well, but some people and all governments fear freedom
When you reduce the conversation to sentences like this, then it should be easy to understand why I think you're ignoring the complexities of trade in our modern market. Let me ask you a question- answer honestly. When you go to the restaurant have you researched the food you're eating? Do you first research what ingredients they use, where those ingredients come from, what type of packaging they use, how they store their food, and how they prepare it? Because in your vision of a free market, unless you are doing all of that, if you get sick it's because you're a "stupid person" who made a stupid decision. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it was the restaurant that made you sick. How can you provide that burden of proof, without all of the above steps?
You're assuming that restaurants would use ingredients that give their customers food poisoning. This is self defeating, word will spread and people will dine elsewhere with a better food safety reputation. Consumer activist bloggers, local news investigations, general word of mouth, you can't keep things like this a secret for long. People can deduce that they weren't sick before they ate at said restaurant. This is like shooting yourself in the foot, suggesting that it's going to save you money in the long run.
No. That's not what I'm assuming at all. You keep missing my point entirely, and keep repeating the same philoso-babble over and over. No matter how thorough a restaurant might be, accidents do happen, and bad food is served. If you get sick from a restaurant's negligence, the fact that it might go out of business some day in the future, has nothing to do with your individual case against that restaurant. The onus is now on YOU to prove that you did everything within your power to prevent yourself from getting sick. If there are no defined kitchen standards, no GMPs, and no required quality control, then it's up to you to make sure where and what you eat is up to your individual standards. The fact that you don't research every aspect of the food you eat means that on some level, you take for granted that the food you eat will be safe. If, as you claim, government regulations have no bearing whatsoever on food safety, then why on earth would you ingest a completely foreign food, from an unknown source, without any forethought or research?
absolutely not. but i accept the consequences of my actions up to and including an unfortunate and terrible death for me and my family...but i'll give you a spoiler, regulations will not prevent that from happening. in fact the most tightly regulated foodstream in the world still causes death and illness on a regular basis. i make hundreds of stupid decisions everyday, everybody does. difference being: i, and people who think like i do, will accept the responsibility for their decisions, instead of blaming the restaurant, the other driver, the....whatever. i don't think the restaurant in question should experience blowback unless and only unless there is a clear and obvious disregard for the health and well being of their customers....but that attitude will show up in their practices long before anybody dies from the food, and will be very easy to prove. and all of this is based on a thin assumption that without the state there will be no review or regulatory process. already private reviews of hospitality business carry a lot more weight than any stamp of approval by the state, AAA diamond club, zagats, and the like. due in large part to the tubes, every city has an ad hoc review board, powered by people and maintained by patrons. which is much more realistic and reliable than any carte blanche approval by an overpaid (albeit overworked) city or state regulator. opponents of the free market seem to think there will be no review process. there will be one, it just won't be run by the state.
hell lady, i eat food off the street in third world countries all the time. never been sick...well....thats probably not entirely true. but the point remains: even with the tightest controls in the free world it is still up to the individual patron to decide if the food is safe. decisions based on uncertainty are tough, but all regulations do is serve as a security blanket, and are about as effective
I've eaten street food from the poorest countries in the world as well. I'm not trying to take all responsibility off of the consumer. Ultimately we ARE responsible for the choices we make. However, the fact that you differietiate that risk from eating here in the US, just reinforces my point that our food safety is being taken for granted. If safety and food regulations don't work, then what is the difference between eating here or overseas?
You mean I actually have to exercise responsibility in where I choose to get my food from? That's just asking too much from me, I should have everything prepped and made safe for me in advance, I should not be made to use critical thinking skills dammit We all take risks and we make decisions that we regret in hindsight. Nobody can police you into not doing so, and it is a futile effort at best, and a counter-intuitive effort at worst. You don't like the food, then don't eat there! It made you sick, then don't go back. It's up to you to use deductive reasoning skills. Not all food is good, and not all food is bad. It doesn't take much to figure out what places you have a better chance of getting well prepped food from as compared to others. As Spikoli stated, just because the state wouldn't be policing the safety of your food, doesn't mean private institutions wont. How do you think the idiots at Dominos were busted, the state sure didn't catch them in the act... I trust user reviews a hell of a lot more then I do a bullshit sanitation score. As far as your hypothetical "I got sick, how do I take recourse", well.... don't go back. The bullshit attitude of I'm going to sue because I got nauseous from my lasagna plate is over the top. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-Z2x4SClaE"]Workers fired for Domino's prank video - YouTube[/ame]
Honestly, every time I go to a restaurant I have never been to before I read the yelp review. They have never failed me yet...
You can vote out corps too, and there is no bullshit electoral college to twist the results. Some regulation has had some desirable effects, depending on your opinion of desirable. If you prefer inadequate protection from the world, provided by the most expensive provider possible, over the benefits of a free market, then yes, they are desirable. But if you wish to KNOW that corps cannot buy elections (without consumer consent) and cannot be granted a monopoly by big brother, then Free Markets are your friend.
you are right that illusion of food safety is being taken for granted. the point that i was trying to make is that there is NO difference between eating here or there. the difference is in our minds.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPYBn7bq60c&feature=related]Ron Paul: "The Big Bankers Never Lose" - YouTube[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BASVCCLA3A]Ron Paul on Government Subsidies - YouTube[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxUqiJoj0lc&NR=1]Ron Paul on National Health Care Reform - YouTube[/ame]
Now you are just backtracking. Of course there is a difference between eating here in the US at a public restaurant and eating in a developing country. The main difference would be in water quality and food storage and preparation. Eating in a developing country requires a whole new level of vigilance that we don't do here. You know there is a difference. True freedom is the illusion here. The idea that you would somehow be more free without any GMPs or labeling laws, is the illusion that you are selling. Freedom is *always* a trade off. You want to be free to own a restaurant without having to deal with health inspectors, but I'd like to be free to go to any restaurant knowing that the kitchen has clean water and proper freezing capabilities. A review on Yelp! isn't going to tell me that (reviews can be faked and bought a lot more easily then health inspectors, btw). You don't want to be forced to put an ingredient label on the food you produce, but I want the freedom to walk into a grocery store, pick up any item and see clearly what I am buying.
If people on yelp or online get sick from the food or it is disgusting, they will write the review about it. And you only listen to the reviews from reputable people. If a bunch of people with no rep say the place is wonderful, but there are a couple of people with tons of rep and they say don't go there cause they got sick, well then I'm not gonna take the risk. And trust me there will still be nutritional labels. The companies that use good ingredients that are healthy will want to put on a label so the people know they can trust it. If it doesn't have a label, don't buy it. The shady companies who are putting unhealthy chemicals and additives in their food will drop because they won't put a label on revealing their ingredients and nutritional values. The healthy food on the other hand will gladly put them on so people feel safe and know what they're getting. You let the market work and the highest quality products with the cheapest price will rise, and the lower quality products will fall.