From: Reason (reason@exratio.com)
Date: Sat Jul 06 2002 - 15:56:32 MDT
--> Mike Lorrey
> Alfio Puglisi wrote:
> >
> > As I said before, it's a matter of balancing things. If discovering the
> > GM status of my food requires an effort comparable to the OJ Simpson
> > investigations, I feel that the rules should be shifted to benefit the
> > consumer a little bit more.
>
> The consumer is a lazy selfish idiot who fails to obey caveat emptor,
> and deserves what they get.
Well, um, more to the point: Alfio, your desire for balance (for everyone,
from context, whether they want it or not) means that the expense of
enforcing these rules must be supported by everyone. You were talking about
government-enforced labelling standards, right? So you're sanctioning the
government to use the threat of force to take money (taxes) from people who
don't support the labelling standards that you would like.
This seems unethical to me. Why not use your consumer rights and let the
companies know that you (and others if you want to form a consumer
association) desire a particular form of labelling? Then let each company
decide to give it to you or not -- if they don't, you buy from someone who
does. Free market in action; companies that don't please their customers
don't have customers. If you're not invested enough to get out there and
make your preferences known, then why should anyone else do that for you?
Essentially, it is not good or ethical to be lazy or selfish, to forcefully
impose your costs on other people, extort money through threat of force, or
impose inefficient monopolies on any service. Unfortunately, this is what
happens day and and day out in our modern governances.
And it all starts out with something like "...I feel that the rules should
be shifted...".
Reason
http://www.exratio.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:11 MST