PDA

View Full Version : Can an enabler be an aggressor?




Kludge
08-17-2008, 03:38 PM
Pretend we have a free economy!


Scenario 1 : A drug with a 95% fatality rate when taken named "Vitadrug" is sold over the internet. There is no description given, just a picture of the product and a price. A person purchases the product, under the assumption that it is a vitamin supplement. The person dies soon after consuming a "Vitadrug" pill.

Is "Vitadrug" corporation responsible for the death of the dead person and what should their punishment be if that is the case?




Scenario 2 : A drug with a 95% fatality rate when taken named "Vitaminidrug" is sold over the internet. It is described as a recreational drug with a large warning label declaring "WARNING : PRODUCT IS DANGEROUS WHEN CONSUMED. MAY CAUSE DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY". A person purchases the product. The person dies soon after consuming the pill.


Is "Vitaminidrug" corporation responsible for the death of the dead person and what should their punishment be if that is the case?


Edit: Labels given are the only labels advertised and on the bottle (As in, the first would be a blank pill bottle with just a label.)

Truth Warrior
08-17-2008, 03:45 PM
What was decided in the Nuremberg trials, concerning enabling, after WWII? ;)

Then there's something about the Jooz and Pontius Piilate "incident" a while back.

Kotin
08-17-2008, 03:53 PM
the free market always corrects itself.. and that also goes for Idiots, Morons, and Imbociles..


:D

Truth Warrior
08-17-2008, 03:54 PM
Is Voting an Act of Violence?
http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/103.php

orafi
08-17-2008, 04:19 PM
Well I mean, if it has a big label on it that tells you you're going to die, then, it's your fault.

And you shoudl be proud of humoring Darwin, too.

Kludge
08-17-2008, 09:16 PM
Bump. Need a bigger sample or McCain HQ won't pay me.

Truth Warrior
08-17-2008, 09:27 PM
Bump. Need a bigger sample or McCain HQ won't pay me.
Just fake it. John does.

Conza88
08-17-2008, 09:27 PM
Aggression = being coercion.

Those purchasers voluntarily purchased & consumed those products.

Scenario 1 would be subject to intent though. Did they know it would kill that person? Is that why they omitted the description etc ? If the family of the deceased sues, they should get compensation to address their grievances.

Essentially though; the market would address the issue. There would be newspaper articles, news coverage, blogs, youtubes, websites, addressing the companies product and it's DANGER... the company's sales are going to dive, it will sell nothing anymore, the brand tarnished, it goes out of business. The market wins again. Including the consumers.

LibertyOfOne
08-17-2008, 10:09 PM
Scenario 1 : Fraud.
Scenario 2 : Someone being stupid.

aspiringconstitutionalist
08-17-2008, 10:11 PM
I agree with Conza that the first example doesn't really fit the phrase "aggression," but I do believe a punishment is necessary in the first case, whereas in the second case the fault lies with the careless consumer.

Conza88
08-17-2008, 10:15 PM
Can I change? I want to be what Kade will probably vote for; "We should never have free markets so these types of situations don't occur." Except is it ok, if I think it will cause more of these problems? :D

Standing Like A Rock
08-17-2008, 11:06 PM
let the seller beware

hypnagogue
08-17-2008, 11:32 PM
There really isn't nearly enough information within this hypothetical to even approach a real world decision. I selected they both were in the wrong, since they were both misleadingly named, and the one with the label, I believe was insufficient. There are several high power medications which a person may legally take which acknowledge an increased chance of mortality. 95% lethality really should be labeled poison, or "Consuming This Will Kill You," or "In Case of Ingestion, Contact Mortician," etc.

I have no problem with someone selling damn near anything, so long as it is properly labeled and all pertinent information is disclosed.

TastyWheat
08-18-2008, 01:50 AM
It may sound sleazy to some, but this is what lawsuits are for. When people or businesses conduct themselves in an uncivil manner (i.e. disrespectful, deceitful, malicious) it's the duty of the consumers to bring lawsuits against the offending parties. As per capitalist ideals, you don't make a product/service for the sole purpose of losing your investment [and then some].

Then again it may be the case that the enabler is intending to be an aggressor. Hypothetical: Someone starts up a cigarette company. It may occur one day that a large batch of cigarettes gets laced with a lethal amount of arsenic on purpose. The cigarettes go out and maybe a few thousand die before the product is taken off the shelves. Given that it would be tough for one person to poison the cigarettes without any other employees knowing, is the person who added the arsenic a mass murderer? They didn't force anyone to smoke the cigarettes. What if it was an accident (bear with me here)? Does the one responsible and the company get off Scott free? Is the only justice in this case a big payout in court?

Conza88
08-18-2008, 02:44 AM
Caveat emptor

youngbuck
08-18-2008, 06:59 AM
In both cases the individual should assume responsibility for what he puts in his body. If you are stupid enough to just buy some drug that you know nothing about, and you suffer because of it, that's your own fault.

Kade
08-18-2008, 07:41 AM
Can I change? I want to be what Kade will probably vote for; "We should never have free markets so these types of situations don't occur." Except is it ok, if I think it will cause more of these problems? :D

You ignorant screeching harpy. That's exactly what I was arguing against...

Conza88
08-18-2008, 07:43 AM
You ignorant screeching harpy. That's exactly what I was arguing against...

Hahah.. :D I was just joking, wanted to see your reaction. :p I don't see your vote though :o


http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d27/tamaracarrion/funny-pictures-cat-hugs-stuffed-bea.jpg

lmao :D

Kade
08-18-2008, 08:08 AM
The premise of the experiment is flawed, and I don't usually vote on these polls...

If the pill is known to have a 95% fatality rate, then nobody is responsible except the idiot who takes it.

Kludge
08-18-2008, 08:27 AM
The premise of the experiment is flawed, and I don't usually vote on these polls...

If the pill is known to have a 95% fatality rate, then nobody is responsible except the idiot who takes it.

The pill HAS a 95% fatality rate, Making assumptions, Kade? :p

The warning labels advertised are the only warning labels warning of the lethality.

Kade
08-18-2008, 08:39 AM
The pill HAS a 95% fatality rate, Making assumptions, Kade? :p

The warning labels advertised are the only warning labels warning of the lethality.

"WARNING : PRODUCT IS DANGEROUS WHEN CONSUMED. MAY CAUSE DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY"

Is an insufficient warning, I could win a lawsuit based on that warning. A 95% fatality rate ought to contain a warning that makes it clear that you will die, more than 9 times out of 10. "If you consumer this, you may live, but highly unlikely."

The warning label you present is put on things that do not have nearly as high a fatality rate. This is not something you can just "live and learn" from... I don't suspect the government should be involved, but a civil lawsuit will be successful.

If you folks disagree, than you need to go back and learn about law, and it's reason for existing. Regardless of how you feel, it will be up to a court and judge to decide if the company was at fault. If there is sufficient negligence on the part of the consumer, the company might get off, if there is sufficient negligence on the side of the company, the consumer (the survivors in this case) will probably be awarded punitive damages.

None of us are qualified to decide with certainty without the full breadth of the evidence and the entire situation. That is why we have courts. There is no purist principle that will solve this... giving the information that we have, I would say the company would probably be held liable... but I'm not 100% sure.

forsmant
08-18-2008, 04:02 PM
These particular scenarios are very improbable. Whoever would buy the blank pill bottle and consume the death pills is a moron. The company would not last long with the retarded marketing department.

Company two at least warned you that the pill would cause death. It will still fail because the death rate is way to high to maintain a reasonable consumer base.

I would say neither company was particularly aggressive. Both transactions were voluntary but company one should be held partially accountable for deceptive business practices.

RedLightning
08-18-2008, 06:19 PM
Whoops I need to learn how to read...Hit wrong choice.