From: Reason (reason@exratio.com)
Date: Sat Jul 06 2002 - 00:56:57 MDT
--> Harvey Newstrom
> 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.
As a lawyer (you are a lawyer, right, memory isn't my strongest feature) you
of all people should know that no process within a company is free. But
that's the minor cost; enforcement and punishment is the real cost. Looked
at how much money the FDA and even a small prison system chews up recently?
> > 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.
Sigh. As I have to explain to many, many people, a libertarian society
performs all these sorts of testing functions through private for-profit and
non-profit concerns. e.g. a corporate monitoring service that you subscribe
to, food information channels on the TV, news services, etc, etc. These
things come about because there is money to be made. Many, many such
services compete for your dollar, advertising dollars, and so forth.
Companies will find that they sell best by being open with these services.
Right now, we just have the one major service (the government) which doesn't
look kindly on competitors, does a lousy job and costs each consumer too
much money *whether or not they want to subscribe to it*.
Come on! This isn't rocket science. Rating, review and investigation
services -- paid for *and chosen* by advertisers or consumers -- exist in
many parts of the food industries right now today. It shouldn't be a stretch
of the imagination to see for-profit concerns serving the consumer far, far
better than the FDA does by requesting labelling, performing lab work, etc.
You agree that a monopoly, any monopoly, on a service that is instituted and
maintained by force is a bad thing, right? That competition is good and
produces better services? Or do you believe that somehow it's ok and fine
and will produce great results if it's the government doing that?
> > 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?
Why is it ok in your book for the majority to force the minority to pay for
or do something that they don't want? That's an ethical position that would
have found you in trouble in many parts of the world not all that recently.
In the libertarian society model above, everyone gets what they want, and
only the people who actually desire a service have to pay for it. i.e. it's
up to the consumer to educate themselves or pay for the service that will do
their work for them. No-one has to go out and learn all about food, or do
their own lab tests -- they pay for one of many services to do that for
them. As I said above, right now there's one service (a monopoly imposed by
threat of force), we all pay for it whether we like it or not, and it sucks.
> >> 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?
a) Yes, but with a long, long qualifier about how corporations work, why we
shouldn't be refering to Enron as an entity capable of action, and the
arbitrary evil that is the SEC.
b) No, under current rules, since that's expected. The polling place should
know that's required beforehand; the owners have the choice of not being a
polling place if they don't want to keep that social contract.
c) Yes. Private contract between worker and company; why should you care?
d) When you're forced to on pain of violence, and always.
> > 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?
See above. Subscribe to a service that does your analysis of new products
for you (and a million other people, so it costs you next to nothing). The
whole point of this is that in a free market, all of these concerns would be
resolved. Businesses would address the needs and desires of the consumer. If
someone wants something, they'll pay for it. The very idea that companies
would put out falsely labelled on unlabelled products in a market filled
with companies and non-profits eager to analyse their goods for profit or
enter the business themselves is ludicrous. Any company that did would cease
to be a company very quickly; no-one would buy their goods, and competitors
would move in within weeks if not days.
(And if you find this unrealistic, I can only suggest you pay more attention
to the news).
So nothing needs to be done. No governance needs to mess with things. It'll
all work out if left alone. Unfortunately it never is, because we're all
slaves to popularity-contest winners who have to keep DOING THINGS to appear
useful. And everything they screw up is something else for them to point to
five years down the line as a place that needs SOMETHING DONE. The wireless
industry, the FCC, the war on drugs, the california energy crisis, etc, etc,
etc, for years and years of idiocy without end. And this is what the people
seem to want.
I can't even listen to NPR anymore out here. You listen to them argue about
what legislation is needed for markets and social contracts that are screwed
up because they are so heavily legislated that nothing works. SOP is to take
the current situation as broken without even stopping to think about *how*
it became broken; i.e. legislation. So people argue about how they are going
to break it worse. It's so frustrating that there is no way out of this
rathole; no plane ticket to a better-run place where I can at least choose
my own brand of idiocy and see if it works better...
Reason
http://www.exratio.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:11 MST