FYI - Eugene is a troll on several liberty forums:
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&p=13605027
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/some-regulations/17156
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?276066-Some-regulations-scenarios
No, but why do you really want people to ignore all common sense and require government regulators in every possible human interaction?
People can have a reference if they want it. As was mentioned above, there are agencies who provide business with standards and guidance. If you’ll notice, private examples are almost exclusively in areas that the government hasn’t set up a competing agency (such as the FDA). Business insurance also provides guidance as part of pricing their product and minimizing claims against a business.
amen to that. Also, Eugene, I urge you to read a paper I posted above. It will answer most of your questions. Even I changed my views after reading it.
That was a phenomenal read.
Eugene, please respond directly to our posts in this thread. Your last post simply repeated what you wrote in the OP. If you’re not interested in hearing what we have to say, why bother? What kind of reaction are you trying to get from us?
He doesn’t want a response, he’s a statist in libertarian clothing. Going board to board acting like the “newbie libertarian” who just wants to “clarify a few things”. While putting petty hypotheticals out there that he thinks are counter to the ideals of liberty and then when he is told about how his assumptions are wrong, he just throws out more wrong hypotheticals.
You can tell by the amatuerness of his trolling that he must be a government worker.
I suspect Elwar was right.
Trolling is done to get a certain reaction out of the people being trolled. If Eugene is a troll, that means he has an ulterior motive at work. What could that ulterior motive be?
I see two kinds of trolling: trolling for fun (usually doesn’t last very long), and trolling and not being aware of it (ignoring arguments, intellectual dishonesty etc.)
And I believe this is the latter case.
I read everything you say, and I appreciate your answers. I posted in several forums to hear as many answers to this as possible. Though it is the last time I’m posting on RonPaulForums, they are a bunch of assholes. For them every questionioning of their beliefs is called trolling.
Although I accepted most of the tenats of libertarianism, but lack of regulations seems one of the most problematic for me. Now I’m sorry I don’t reply to each answer, it easier for me to reply generally. I’ll get back to you with something more substantial.
Okay, I have nothing substantial. Just another question. What should customers be able to expect from sellers, and what should employees be able to expect from employers? Nothing except what they tell you? What is the level fo implicit expectations that you think customers or employees should have?
P.S. MaikU, I’ve skimmed through the article you gave me. I’ll read it more thoroughlly later. I’m not an anarchist though so I don’t think I’ll agree to private courts or stuff like that.
Good, Eugene. Appreciate your honesty. And I suggested you that article because you are not anarchist. It will hopefully answer at least some if not most of you questions about law and especially myths, that are perpetuating in modern society.
It’s quite long read, there is a pdf version: http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythFinalDraft.pdf
Products that are demanded by the market.
Again, we believe issues like these are market driven. Working conditions, working wages, etc. are determined by the market by competition. If an employee doesnt like a certain job, then all he/she has to do is quit. Since scarcity is always with us, there is always a job that needs to be done.
What I mean is what can customers expect for example from a restaurant. Can they expect a non rotten food? Can they expect that cooks wash their hands after visiting a toilet? Should they expect nothing at all unless the restaurant owner explicitly announces these things or a third party regulator gives an “okay”? Certainly they can expect something, but what is that something, and how can the restaurant owner know what are the implicit expectations of the customers?
I might be repetetive, but please bear with me.
How does any seller know what are the implicit expectations of his potential customers (buyers)? If cleanliness is valued, then it will be provided by the seller and paid for by the buyer. If warmth is valued, then it will be provided by the seller and paid for by the buyer. If transparency (information, reviews, certifications, grades, etc.) is valued, then it will be provided by the seller (restaurant owner) and paid for by the buyer. Where/why would you ever see a need for force (coercion, regulation) here?
Z.
Let me put it another way, businesses need people in order to get money… why would a business try to harm their customers if they want them to come back and eat again? Death is bad for business..
EDIT: Also, go watch ‘Food Inc’… that just shows you how government regulation over food is in fact encouraging the unsanitary market of food
If we assume strict liability, the restaurant would certainly be liable to the customer. The customer paid for a non-contaminated burger. The person or people running the restaraunt took the money and did not deliver. If it could be proved that the contamination happened through the actions of a vendor or suppier, the vendor or supplier would be liable to the restaraunt, not the customer.
First of all I am only talking about the 0.1% of cases in which the business did harm the customers, not the 99.9% in which it didn’t. People do stupid things, including resturant owners.
Now I’ll have to get back to my previous point. You are saying that the customer payed for non-contaminated burger. But did he? He didn’t specify it after all. Then I assume you mean it is an implied assumption, an expectation. But how can restaurant owners be liable for expectations of customers? How can they know which expectations customers have?
Well what most people here believe in as a general “law of the land” is the non-agression principle. I suppose food poisoning could be considered physical harm to a person.
But as an aside, what are your opinions on private food inspectors as a tool of journalism? That was my argument in my previous post. Do you think it would be inefficent? Corrupt? Not profitable enough to be pursued in the free market? Wasn’t it journalism that exposed the insanitary conditions that led to the creation of the FDA? I believe the market can regulate sanitary conditions via journalism as efficently as the government can. Please tell me whether you agree.
Even without private food inspectors, restaurant owners do not want to risk bad publicity, so they will keep their food as sanitary as they can in order to maximize profit. If people are getting sick at a restaurant, it deters business.
I feel wonderful about food inspectors whether they are journalists or simply third party certificate givers. I definitely believe the market can regulate sanitary conditions in most cases. However there are always bad businessmen who want to make big money very quickly. So they might not have any sanitary conditions. Now does it mean they should go unpunished for food poisoning? Its true that no more customers will go to such restaurant, but they already make their buck from the previous customers. They can just relocate and open another shaky business somewhere else.
But all in all I think I agree with having no regulations. Every regulation has exceptions, so every regulation has a negative impact on at least some people and businesses. Private regulations on the other hand are not mandatory, so those businesses that don’t want to follow them don’t need to. So I guess customers should have no expectation whatsoever from a business unless that business states that it follows some industry standard. Otherwise the food can be poisoned, the roof my collapse, etc…