There is about 1/1,000,000 chance to catch a disease after going to the barber, that’s because the tools that the standard barber uses are not completely sterile. Nevertheless people take this chance, because it is extremely expensive to have 100% sterile tools. Some barbers in very poor neighborhoods use only basic precautions, so the chance to catch a disease from these barbers is about 1/100,000.
In a Libertarian society without regulations there will be barbers that will not use precautions at all, and the chance to catch a disease from such barbers will be 1/1000.
Now imagine yourself living in a Libertarian society. You go to a barber, and you contract AIDS. You then sue the barber in court. What does the judge say?
If the judge says it is your problem, because we don’t regulate businesses, then I think from that moment on you will start to distrust everyone on the street. You won’t even be able to buy sausages from a street vendor because you will know that even if the sausage is rotten, the seller won’t be culpable and will not be punished if he poisoned you.
I think, even in Libertarian society there have to be minimal regulations. You can’t let everyone get away with anything. For example I would expect a law that says the following:
“Barbers should make sure they take at least basic precautions in order to avoid contraction of diseases. If however the costumer has explicitly said that he accepts the risk, only then the barber does not have to take the specified precautions.”
Even assuming you could not sue, I think it would not be a problem.
Instantly barbers eager for business would advertise that they sterilize their equipment. The sausage vendors would seek some private agency, perhaps alocal doctor, to give them certification. Remember the phrase “Anything for a buck”. That will solve all the problems.
It sounds like yet another case of “what if someone bought spoilt milk?” to me. You’re presuming that government regulations are what make barber shops cleaner, when in fact it’s an abundance of already existing clean barbershops which make the regulations politically possible.
So if a vendor poisons me with a rotten sausage, he should not be culpable? This just doesn’t make sense. By removing responsibility from the seller you create incentives for many such phony sellers to sell their merchandize even after its gone bad. Such sellers will then be able to move from one town to another where no one knows them and continue selling rotten sausages.
If the barber is any profit maximizing businessman, he would have to make his enterprise as safe as he could make it for consumers. If he did not, why would people continue to go there? He would be run out of business, by other (safer) competitors.
A private judge would likely declare the barber and his business unsafe, and would recommend people to stop going there. Perhaps the private barber regulating agency would revoke his membership because of the judges ruling.
Many of the appliances we buy are UL approved. Underwriter’s Lab is not a government agency yet many producers seek there approval because consumers demand it. In the case of the barber after an incident like you have described occurs consumers would most likely shun barbers that did not subscribe to independent testing agencies.
And what about food vendors? Will you also demand of them to show you a certificate of some sort? Isn’t it simpler just to forbid food vendors to poison you?
Now imagine yourself living in a Libertarian society. You go to a barber, and you contract AIDS. You then sue the barber in court. What does the judge say?
Can’t predict a future market in legal services. What I would say, if I was the arbiter, would be that the barber owes you nothing as there was an implied agreement that you accepted the risk arising from ordinary activities of the barber. If you had strictly asked the barber to be liable, in advance, than yes, he would be. If someone was really afraid of such instances, he could insist on such a written declaration (just to be sure) beforehand. But in most cases, I would not hold the barber liable.
When you come to a barber you don’t expect to contract a disease. How would you even know that you can catch a disease in such place? This is not something intuitive. I think barbers that don’t take hygienic precautions at all should at least warn the customers. The customer has the right to know what kind of deal he is getting. If the barber failed to warn the customer, then I do think he should be liable.
My personal opinion is that they’d still be held accountable, or else things wouldn’t work. It’s not like common sense and rationality go away in a libertarian/stateless society. If you buy a hotdog from a vender and you get sick afterwards, what happens now? Nothing, because normally you can’t prove to a judge that it was the vender’s specific food that made you sick. Plus, you have to realize that people aren’t going to suddenly start putting poison in foods to kill people, even if there’s absolutely no accountability. Serial killers will be serial killers, laws or not. If the community finds out that someone is poisoning the food, they’ll be punished in some way and then be banished from the community.
Yes. Private accreditation agencies would spring up to ensure that it’s clients (companies, restaurants, etc.) are operating up to par. This would be like privatizing the FDA, for which I believe there many media sources on here. When you think of huge food recalls, it’s usually due to the government subsidizing certain farmers and the farmers using monoculture with the extra money. They basically grow one crop on acres of land, and, when a disease springs up in one plant, it reaches the others very, very easily. It was basically the reason for the Irish Potato Famine. Especially now, people are quite health/safety conscious. Food will always be healthier/safer in the free market. That’s why I get my produce from farmers markets.
“Barbers should make sure they take at least basic precautions in order to avoid contraction of diseases. If however the costumer has explicitly said that he accepts the risk, only then the barber does not have to take the specified precautions.”
I don’t see this as being a very good law. First, how do you define “basic precautions”? Second, having a law that declares that the barber doesn’t have to take any precautions if the “costumer has explicitly said [sic] he/she accepts the risk,” is redundant. An intelligent costumer doesn’t need a law to do that - he/she will have already made that decision before purchasing the service. Some people are always going to buy something without considering the consequences, but by getting burned in the process, it acts as a powerful incentive to make smarter decisions. Endorsing any laws that are made to protect people from doing stupid things just encourage additional such behavior because it moves the responsibility from their shoulders and places it upon someone else.
And God forbid you contract a blood-borne illness at the barber’s - would you not still have recourse to sue for damages? After all, the barber has damaged your right to life. Should the barber pack up and flee, I also don’t see how this is a major problem. Reputation means a lot when people are shopping around for something they are not familiar with. If the barber in this analogy set up shop in another town, he’s going to have to work hard to attract business from suspicious consumers - especially if any private accreditation agency had revoked its seal of approval.
stop thinking of the government as the savior to our problems… it is not efficent and never will be… private courts and businesses will be more productive and efficent. In you case, if a barber as a bad rep in giving people aids somehow, he will go out of business for lack of good rep and court costs that others start… if you havent read about private courts and law, i suggest you do…
Do you demand government agents to test the food before you put it onto your mouth? Of course not, you assume they are doing they’re job. The problem with government fiat decrees vs private ones is that one has an incentive to provide better services (profit motive) and the other does not. I ask you, which system will serve the consumers better?
And what about food vendors? Will you also demand of them to show you a certificate of some sort? Isn’t it simpler just to forbid food vendors to poison you?
Quote
Most of the food you buy is USDA approved. Take the US out of it and private industry would regulate it. How about Kosher foods. People seek them out without government approval
Its not a matter of expectations. The way I see it, we have a case in which prior provision for possible future liabilities have not been made. The barber has not assumed liability, nor has the client explicitly retained it. In such cases, the arbiter will have to make a choice, choosing which situation is more practical. In this instance, I do not find it very objectionable that the barber didn’t warn the customer: any decently informed human will know that you could get sick in any instance. If the customer is really into safety, and there is nothing wrong with that, let him stipulate beforehand that he expects the barber to be liable for any harm he causes, directly or indirectly, to him. Otherwise, I see no reason to hold the barber liable.
Another example is to only shop or eat at places that place a “Yelp Approved” sticker on the outside. And Yelp can be some independent 3rd party reviewer. no USDA/FDA required. But a certificate of safety could just as easily be hung on the wall, and business’s are encouraged to show proof of safety to their customers.
I don’t know why some people are having such a hard time grasping this, especially since it’s already widely practiced.
When someone sells you a raw chicken with salmonella, then he is also responsible for the consequences of me buying and eating it. I believe it is not only my responsibility for choosing a credible seller, but it is also the responsibility of the seller not sell me something that can easily endanger my health.
There has to be a common sense here. You can’t let con artists sell their faulty merchandise or use harmful materials. They also have some responsibility for their actions.
Besides, do you really expect people to approach a hot dog owner and ask him for a certificate each time before you buy a hot dog? It doesn’t make a lot of sense. I think it would be more efficient to have at least basic assurance that the food is not poison.
but they will simply go out of business if their product is horrible quality compared to other venders that offer the same product because they recieve a bad rep and they pay court costs to all the people that filed a law suit and won… again, the only way for you to understand this clearly is by picking up a book on private law…