I know that many people here have an anarchist perspective and would not consider any law justified under any basis on the grounds that it would restrict how people operate. But I recently read The Road to Serfdom, and, I’ve found myself very much in accord with a lot of the things Hayek has said. He doesn’t say that all regulation will lead to collectivism/socialism/nazism/fascism. He only says central economic planning would.
FA Hayek also goes on to say that corporations do not have the right to outright bamboozle its costumers. That, and they don’t have the right to deceive their consumers about their products. He also says that some regulation that the market can’t provide might be necessary.
That said, given Hayek’s views, and, given the philosophy of the NAP, I’m not talking about banning drugs or anything, but do you think that consumers have a right to know this information? That being, if there are people in the market who feel uncomfortable with providing all information about their food that may be harmful to others, do you think the government would be justified in promoting more labeling requirements, so, food corporations would have to tell the consumers what’s really in their food?
I know this isn’t a traditional libertarian view. But, from what I’ve read, Hayek isn’t against all regulation. He was mainly against the regulation and central planning that would interfere with the market, and, would keep competition from propping up, and keep the market from flowing on as it does. But, wouldn’t this be in accord to Hayek’s views? Again, I just wanted to repeat, that I know this isn’t the traditional libertarian view on things… but I consider myself more of a Hayekian liberal… and there may be some Hayekean justification for this.
What if they put things in their food that they knowingly will harm their consumers? They may not be telling people what’s in them (not lying), but, they’re doing it intentionally and they know that it will cause consumers to get diseases and stuff? Wouldn’t the NAP apply there if the market couldn’t provide it?
I’m not trying to provide a justification for increased statism here. I’m just wondering if some of these health and safety laws might be justified.
Mislabeling products would be fraud, so I don’t think what you’re talking about is non-libertarian (only the part about the government being responsible for this is). Let’s say they label orange juice as containing 10% juice and 90% water, but leave out any coloring or preservatives, then I think that could count as mislabeling their product.
I don’t see why they should be forced to clearly inform you about a given ingredient causing cancer or bowel irritation or whatever (or even about what ingredients there are in the first place). But I do think that such info would be appreciated by consumers, and that producers clearly labeling their products or ingredients, including info on whether they might potentially be harmful would be at an advantage. It is also conceivable that there would be independent organizations testing products. In fact, we have that right now, cf. TÜV or Stiftung Warentest.
Sounds like a mellower version of the ‘we can’t have anarchism because crazy people would hand out poisoned candy on Halloween’ objection.
If they put in something toxic then they can be brought before a private court. If they put in something which is merely ‘harmful’ though it simply means they make tasty food that people want to buy.
If that was directed at me, then I think we’ve misunderstood each other. What I was talking about was voluntary labeling, potentially verified by independent organizations. Your usage of the word “objection” in this context suggests that you understood me (or the OP, for that matter) as calling for unlibertarian measures.
The idea of “rights” is subjective. The question as you pose it can’t really be answered by anything other than a “here’s what I think”. That aside, here’s what I think:
The consumer has no right to know what is in a product they purchase. They have the right to try and find out. They have a right to not buy the product out of distrust. So should there be laws to protect us from, say, dangerous things in food. I would say to that, “What difference does it make?” And then I would answer that the difference is only in how the businessman behaves. What does a law do to someone who decides to put something harmful in a product? Certainly, he is punished, but this punishment will come after the damage has been done, for how would anyone know of this evil if no one was hurt. “Oh,” you say, “but what if some bold hero exposes the evils being committed? Then we have law to punish those involved before anything happens!” Can I add to that? Certainly. If we know beforehand that a product is dangerous, do we still buy it? No. The law does not have to exist for me to say, “Holy crap! Thine candies contain razor blades! I shall buy them no more!”
We live in a society that becomes paranoid at even a vague rumor. I recall a spinach dilemma, a fiasco over the type of meats used in Burger King hamburgers, and a scare of mad-cow disease. Personally, I ignored these and continued to enjoy my spinach and hamburgers. In the end, all of these problems were pretty unwarranted, but the point is that it was bad for the businesses involved, and there really wasn’t a problem to begin with. Imagine how difficult it will be for any business that actually harms even ten or twenty people, if rumor alone can be ruinous. If there really are villains out there who would rather hurt people than enjoy profit, let them try. They will only do so as long as we give them money. The businessman who genuinely wants to sell us that which will bring him profit is anything short of, or possibly equal to, a schizophrenic who must do anything and everything to ensure we trust his product. Let him decide whether to inform us of the contents of a chocolate cake. If he decides poorly, he will soon change his mind, or lose customers. Therein lies the true meaning of the almighty dollar.
Whoa, whoa there, you radical oppressor! Don’t go saying he’s wrong now! He has a right to know. I’m sure he’s perfectly correct. Of course, the problem with that is that the baker of the “mystery cookie” has the right not to tell him. That usually presents a problem. Hey, I have an idea! Why don’t we all get assigned a butler with a pistol, and whenever we decide we have a right to something from someone else, we can just threaten to have them shot! BAM! World peace!
Im sorry but I cant agree, the only way to make a correct economic decision with my scarce resources is by having an appropriate amount of information, among that information is what the product contains.
If the baker bakes his mystery cookie and the label says “mystery cookie” then it is within your right not to buy that cookie, and those who crave a little mystery in their lives are perfectly free to demand them.
The assumption in this statement, of course, is that everyone makes decisions based off of the same information as yourself. Now, my “correct economic decision” is based more off of “Ooh, Mystery Cookie! That sounds gooooooood! Please take my monies, good shopkeep, so that I may consume your enigmatic baked goods.”
All of that misses the point, however. We are at odds here in maintaining your god-given right to information! What do we do about the baker, who has so clearly defiled such holy sanction? How dare he shrug off your demand for his knowledge, which you have title to? I say we toss him in the gulags! Or shoot him. I know! Let’s do both! Maybe if we torture him first, we can find out what is in his cookies, and then when he’s dead and gone we can turn around and use his recipe to start our own business. My god, economics is so simple…I just created jobs through nothing more than the fact of my right!
I consider it like this: your purchase is a contract, not simply to exchange money for some good, but that the good operates upon a reasonable basis of safety and serviceability, provided there are no clearly indicated legal disclaimers or warnings.
If you use the good as directed and are seriously harmed or the good does not produce the desired results, you SHOULD (subjective preference) be able to claim damages and sue…or at least return the product for a refund.
Of course, even without such liability, adding toxic waste to your products to cut costs is surely only a short-term benefit; and most producers purposefully avoid such.
ON THE OTHER HAND, government regulation to pre-screen products before they are marketed to the general public is both immoral and impractical. Withholding life-saving drugs from the market in the name of safety is Orwellian double-speak. Producers can surely seek certifications or approval from private institutions that review products, but that is their own voluntary decision to make.
[i]You must always consider the target audience that the book was planned for.
SilentXtarian But, from what I’ve read, Hayek isn’t against all regulation.
Every government regulation is a step towards central planning.[/i]
I’m not disputing that. But he was for what was absolutely necessary that he felt the market couldn’t provide for itself. I’m not saying that the market couldn’t provide labels for itself accurately at all. That’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m just saying what he said.
[i]He was mainly against the regulation and central planning that would interfere with the market, and, would keep competition from propping up, and keep the market from flowing on as it does.
So according to you, he is against regulations or not? What possible regulation can you think off that does not interfere with the market?
[/i]
Like I said, he was against regulations unless they were absolutely necessary. He wanted a strong legal system (not the kind with patents, and, what we have today, he wouldn’t have envisioned this). I wouldn’t think that requiring corporations to correctly label their food products (as opposed to mislabel them) would interfere with the market. Of course it might be wrong to require them to label all of their food products- but the point is that they can’t lieabout what their food does, or, what it doesn’t do. Maybe independent research groups can find out all that’s in a food product… but I think FA Hayek would argue that they shouldn’t lie to you, or, tell you something about their product that isn’t true.