From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Fri Jul 05 2002 - 23:00:17 MDT
On Friday, July 5, 2002, at 02:50 pm, Reason wrote:
>> I don't see how proponents of the free market can oppose labeling. It
>> seems that open markets require informed consumers who know exactly
>> what
>> they are buying.
> And who finances this costly process of coercively subsidising people
> who
> are unwilling to invest their own time in checking products that they
> buy?
What costs? Companies must already know what is in their food and
demonstrate it to be safe. They also must label food accurately. Why
can't their inside information match their outside information? I don't
see any additional costs.
> Let the market decide whether companies who label their product
> contents do
> well. Let the market opportunity allow entrepreneurs who develop product
> monitoring and rating companies make money for their investors. Just
> don't
> create a huge tax-funded and unaccountable monstrosity to force people
> into
> doing things that they don't want or need to do.
The market only works with informed consumers. If we can't tell who is
labeling their products accurately and who isn't, how can we decide?
This is like saying that the stock-market will decide who is cheating on
their accounting. Wrong. The accounting must be accurate for the
market to make informed choices. The labeling must be accurate for
consumers to make informed choices. I think it is ludicrous to argue
that inaccurate or incomplete information is acceptable and that people
will somehow detect the fraud and avoid the products by themselves.
> Why, oh, why, does everyone seem to think that it's ok to force a
> million
> people to do something because a couple of guys want them to?
What are you talking about? The majority of people are against GM foods
and the majority of them want proper labeling? Also, why does everyone
think that it's OK to sell stuff to someone that you know doesn't want
it just because you withhold details that would discourage the sale?
>> I don't see forcing corporations to tell the truth about their products
>> as being coercive. It seems that hiding the truth or misleading the
>> customer into making choices they don't want is the coercive action.
>
> How is this "forcing" not coercive? This is a ridiculous statement.
So you think it is coercive to make Enron show us the true accounting
books? Do you think it is coercive to make polling places show us the
proper voting counts? Do you think it is coercive to make workers file
accurate time cards? Since when is telling the truth "coercive" and
withholding information acceptable?
> Like
> much of todays language, it seems to assume that the customer has no
> responsibility or intelligence. No-one can make choices that they don't
> want
> to make; they can make choices that they don't like, but by the very
> fact
> that it's called a "choice" they made it of their own free will. If you
> don't like a product, don't buy it. If the market is truly free and
> enough
> people don't like the product, then someone will quickly come out with
> products that address the consumer concerns because there is money to be
> made.
But what if a product is not labeled? How do you avoid buying a can of
coke that has pepsi in it if it is mislabeled. If the different
"choices" are all labeled the same way with no way to tell them apart,
how can you make a choice? Some people want to buy GM foods. How can
they do this if they are not labeled? Some people want to buy non-GM
foods. How can they do this if they are not labeled? After both
products are in the marketplace unlabeled, how can we claim that the
consumers made a choice?
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:11 MST