So here is a pretty common statist question that Milton answers decently:
i dont think this is a successful enough defense by milton. He’s right, but I believe most people wouldnt buy his argument and still believe ford is in the wrong here.
I would of added how government is to blame for having a monopoly control of approving ‘safe’ cars to drive. That if government werent involved the consumers would demand a 3rd party (or most likely multiple 3rd parties) to inspect the vehicles and give their opinion on potential safety flaws.
What else would you add to better Milton’s defense?
How else would a free market make for more intelligent consumers so when they purchase goods they have access to what the risks are?
Also in a free world would ford be liable to damages if they knowingly allowed people to purchase this car without informing the consumer (i dont think so)?
would a 3rd party who assessed risk potential of the vehicle be held liable if they said it was good to go (i think so)?
I know this doesn’t fully answer your question, but wanted to bring this up. A possible way that approval would be done is through insurance companies. Insurance companies would naturally be interested in the type of car they were insuring. They would want to know that the car you are driving is working properly and safe, because a defective car will increase the probability that you will accidentally get yourself into trouble and they will have to cover it. To that end, they may refuse to cover people that were driving certain cars. This is one viable replacement for government regulating cars under market anarchy.
ya i agree. I was orginally thinking that they wouldnt play a major role, but youre right. Theyd also play an important role in keeping auto companies in check and honest. Also they have major incentives to inform their customers of dangers even after the purchase of a car if a defect is found even after the purchase.