A Challenge to Libertarianism?

[DeadheadForPaul]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/28/salmonella.outbreak/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

How would such an outbreak be contained without some sort of oversight?

[nate895]

The corporation violated the rights of the people who purchased their product, therefore they should be punished. I find this kind of inspection perfectly reasonable, and I don't see why a libertarian would be vehemently opposed to banning, and taking steps to prevent, salmonella poisoning.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

If this was a free market, that peanut butter plant would be out of business. It is never good business to make people sick unless you have inside ties to government. That way, if you make it look like you have achieved the minimum standards set by your heavily lobbied government, you will be cleared of all wrongdoings.

If government regulation of food was completely repealed and small businesses were allowed to start up legally, there would be 100% transparency in the food supply and food producers would be in competition with each other to make a quality product. There would be no shelter of the anonymous, centralized food system; if you make someone ill, you pay.

[DeadheadForPaul]

I'm not questioning whether the business would EVENTUALLY be out of business

The problem is:
1.) Could this be prevented with a free market?
2.) How would we have located the source of the outbreak without oversight?
3.) Why would the business voluntarily expose itself as the source?

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

This could absolutely be prevented with a free market. A free market allows small businesses to flourish. The main advantage of small food producers is that customers know immediately (forget 48 hour track back crap) where their food is coming from. With a face to face food transaction you do not need government regulatory mechanisms because any food producer that wants to stay in business for ANY amount of time will make sure that his product is clean. As it is, there are only a few labs spread around the countryside that can be hired to do safety checks on food, and there is virtually nothing to keep them honest. If there were millions of small food producers with legitimate concerns about the safety of their products, there would be many more labs in competition with each other to provide the most accurate results possible. If a contaminated food were to slip through the safety net, the food poisoning would be limited and localized because there would not be gigantic subsidized "food" manufacturers shipping to 42 states.

If you would still like your Peter Pan peanut butter when there are many high quality alternatives, that is your choice, and if you do get sick from it, you must share some of the responsibility. Modern "food" dealers don't need to claim that their products are safe; the government tells that lie for them.

No business would voluntarily reveal itself as the source of an outbreak, but without government support, they would not be able to hide or evade recourse so easily.

[socialize_me]

I'm not questioning whether the business would EVENTUALLY be out of business

The problem is:
1.) Could this be prevented with a free market?
2.) How would we have located the source of the outbreak without oversight?
3.) Why would the business voluntarily expose itself as the source?

So wait a minute, you say the free market cannot do this all on its own and claim it needs oversight for something like this...

...well what's the FDA then? Isn't THAT oversight? A bad one, yes, but what would you replace the FDA with? Another government agency? How would that be any different?

Thinks like this happen. They just do. It's apparent that even with the FDA and its hundreds of thousands of pages of rules and regulations that Salmonella outbreaks that hospitalize over 500 people will happen.

So even with massive oversight and huge government penalties, THIS STILL HAPPENED! I think it's a shame that good corporations that don't get people sick are being punished unreasonably just so that they can have a license to do their business. I think it's a shame that taxpayers have to pay the FDA which then restricts and determines (very inefficiently by the way) what and how companies do business, and yet things like this happen.

The point is, these things happen regardless of whether you have communism, socialism, capitalism, mixed shit, whatever. It just shows that if the government has to regulate it, it will still happen anyway...in the meantime, you just took billions of dollars in taxes from the public and you accomplished nothing...

[socialize_me]

As far as your point about the free market's answer to this, perhaps there would be a private FDA. A third party, objective food inspector that inspects food/drugs/products of private companies and stamps them for approval. Why would they do this? It's very similar to card grading companies where people go out of their way to pay a premium to have their cards graded by an objective and trusted third party, like PSA. PSA is the most widely known card grader because they are the most reputable. The best food inspecting company would be the most trusted, and businesses would pay a higher premium to have their food inspected by this firm than the other ones. When the consumer sees these products are approved by the XYZ third party, then they will likely purchase that product as opposed to the other product that isn't approved and hasn't been inspected.

In fact, this is exactly how Accounting works. Corporations have their books audited by objective third-party accountants to make sure they aren't cooking the books. This assures investors. Furthermore, investors are attracted more to companies that use reputable third party accountant firms because of their history. This means the corporation will likely have to pay more to have that star power cross examining the books, but if it means more money into the company via investment by stockholders, then it's worth the price right?

If these third party firms fail and if tainted food enters the market and slips by their inspectors, then the third party inspecting firm will be penalized by the free market. They will likely be fired and the food processing plant will move onto another inspecting firm, and that third party inspecting firm that dropped the ball will also have their reputation damaged. Thus in the end, you are left with a free market that has chosen the best, most reputable, most objective, and most trusted third-party private FDA firm that is more efficient than the federal FDA, and also costs taxpayers nothing.

The firms that opt out of having their food inspected will likely be shunned by the free market. Eventually, having your products inspected by private third party firms will become a requisite for business as it just comes standard. Power windows were once a luxury, now they're not even thought of because they NEED to be in the vehicles.

Besides, if we had no FDA, the lack of federal compliance costs for companies would free up a lot of capital. In fact, the money they save on paperwork, licenses, training, legal advice (most corporations and all of the major ones have permanent full-time lawyers just to keep track of new FDA regulations that affect their business), will undoubtedly be cheaper and will cover the premium to have that private FDA firm inspect their business! So you've not only saved the taxpayers, but also provided the consumer with safer food as a private FDA would be more efficient, and saved the business to where they could save millions of dollars a year to devote to other areas of the company. Society is better off.

You'll find Salmonella outbreaks will be far less frequent in a free market if this method was taken.

[idiom]

Or even just make the FDA optional and let it compete with private food testing companies.

Then if you want to, you can still buy government approved food only.

[danberkeley]

I'm not questioning whether the business would EVENTUALLY be out of business

The problem is:
1.) Could this be prevented with a free market?

Probably not the first tome. But the FDA/government failed to do so as well. Also, third-party organizations would arise to test such products. Sort of like "Consumer Reports" type of organizations.


2.) How would we have located the source of the outbreak without oversight?

Oversight failed to prevent it.


3.) Why would the business voluntarily expose itself as the source?

Who knows what goes on inside the "board room".

[tremendoustie]

I'm not questioning whether the business would EVENTUALLY be out of business

The problem is:
1.) Could this be prevented with a free market?
2.) How would we have located the source of the outbreak without oversight?
3.) Why would the business voluntarily expose itself as the source?

I think exposing someone to salmonella is civil offense, for which a lawsuit could be legitimately filed. There would be accountability, because people would stop using the tainted products. The company has a strong motivation to avoid having this happen in the first place -- not just because of potential lawsuits, but because people will stop using their products.

If there is only one plant effected, the larger company will have a motivation to identify that plant, so that it can resume safe production as soon as possible. If an entire company is affected, people will probably just stop using that product, and it would destroy the brand. Consumer protection groups can also help.

Companies as stupid as to behave like this one would quickly go out of business. In fact, the FDA saved their butts by restoring some sort of credibility -- people and companies may trust their product now, but if the news had just come out, with no FDA, they'd be out of business.

[amy31416]

Grow your own damned food or buy local.

[tremendoustie]

Or even just make the FDA optional and let it compete with private food testing companies.

Then if you want to, you can still buy government approved food only.

Great idea. We can have an "FDA seal of approval", which is optional, but cannot be used fraudulently. Eventually, I wager, competing consumer protection agencies might spring up, funded by the companies whose products they test, who are at least as trustworthy or more so than the FDA.

[Liberty Rebellion]

Great idea. We can have an "FDA seal of approval", which is optional, but cannot be used fraudulently. Eventually, I wager, competing consumer protection agencies might spring up, funded by the companies whose products they test, who are at least as trustworthy or more so than the FDA.

Maybe it's time we brought back ol' Blue Bird!

http://www.gooznersolar.com/20071016decathlon/nra_eagle_we_do_our_part.jpg

:D

Looking for that image, look at this pathetic article I stumbled upon:

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MA02/volpe/newdeal/nira.html

The concluding paragraph is the clincher:


Perhaps more important was the impact that the NRA had on the American people. As Arthur Schlesinger points out, while poorly administered and with questionable regulation, the NRA boosted national morale. As the sense of crisis waned, so did the foundation of the NRA. It is perhaps the perfect illustration of the psychological function thesis: the New Deal was not always about success or failure in relation to economic recovery. By uniting the American people and giving hope, the programs could succeed in providing hope and motivation where there was previously none.

Yes! Programs that prolonged the Depression instead of their intended purpose of ending it sooner while giving the American people a false sense of hope for the win!