A real buzzkill (seriously; the environment dudes)

[Monty3038]

So can I sell bottle water laced with arsenic? There clearly is a place for regulation in society.

Ok... and once you start selling it, how long do you think you will be in business?

Again, it is a self correcting problem. Sure, there is a place for government, certain things are necessary... but some are not. In business, if you sell a product that sucks, you are going out of business. Plain and simple. Selling a product that is outright harmful is a method for getting the public to burn down your house... with you in it.

[CoccoBill]

Ok... and once you start selling [bottles of water laced with arsenic], how long do you think you will be in business?

How long will it take for people to notice it has arsenic if it's not tested, the people getting sick or dying from it are not receiving public health care and public news media is not covering the issue? Then when they do get caught and lose business, they just need to change their brand name and continue on. Obviously lacing water with arsenic is a bit dumb, rather use nicotine or opiates or something, much more effective. In a world without regulation and health standards, please explain how the tasteless and odorless nicotine in a bottle of water gets noticed.

[Monty3038]

How long will it take for people to notice it has arsenic if it's not tested, the people getting sick or dying from it are not receiving public health care and public news media is not covering the issue? Then when they do get caught and lose business, they just need to change their brand name and continue on. Obviously lacing water with arsenic is a bit dumb, rather use nicotine or opiates or something, much more effective. In a world without regulation and health standards, please explain how the tasteless and odorless nicotine in a bottle of water gets noticed.

Obviously arsenic is a ridiculous idea, as is the fact that you would just lose business. But both extremes averaged out kind of make the middle ground.

[wufwugy]

Obviously arsenic is a ridiculous idea, as is the fact that you would just lose business. But both extremes averaged out kind of make the middle ground.

Actually, arsenic is a very normal example. Egregious production practices causing enormous havoc and not costing the businesses much is very common.

Look at milk pasteurization for example. Raw milk was killing a lot of people, but everybody still wanted it, and it was only until the taxpayer funded government hired some scientists and regulators to fix the problem. Not only did the consumers not punish the businesses for poor dairy production practices, but even today, many consumers are trying to return to that era of lethal milk

Consumers are not some kind of logical equalizer. We already know for a fact that businesses get away with so many forms of extreme levels of destruction when unhindered by governing bodies represented by and for the public

[CoccoBill]

Obviously arsenic is a ridiculous idea, as is the fact that you would just lose business. But both extremes averaged out kind of make the middle ground.

NRDC: Arsenic in Drinking Water

[Lukie]

cliffs notes: the government should and does (to an extent) protect us from dangerous contaminants and pollutants and such.

this isn't particularly groundbreaking stuff here.

[boost]

Ok... and once you start selling it, how long do you think you will be in business?

Again, it is a self correcting problem. Sure, there is a place for government, certain things are necessary... but some are not. In business, if you sell a product that sucks, you are going out of business. Plain and simple. Selling a product that is outright harmful is a method for getting the public to burn down your house... with you in it.

Clearly you are not familiar with the times before regulation where traveling sales men would sell all sorts of unproven and often times dangerous elixirs.

Here's another example for you. Without regulation, there would be no restaurant inspections. Although I, being on the side of the restaurant, normally view inspections as an annoyance, they are necessary. Without them a place can serve unsafe food and put peoples lives on the line. Yes the business will be shuttered eventually, but others who don't have high standards will continue to open unsafe restaurants. Inspection (and therefore regulation) can actually be seen as a benefit for businesses; we could easily imagine a consumer base that is fearful of trying out the new restaurant on the block since it hasn't been proven to be safe.

Even if we accept the idea of self correcting markets for truth, we have to figure out on what sort of time frame they self correct. Is the "freedom" gained worth the damage suffered before the market corrects itself?

[wufwugy]

Here's another example for you. Without regulation, there would be no restaurant inspections. Although I, being on the side of the restaurant, normally view inspections as an annoyance, they are necessary. Without them a place can serve unsafe food and put peoples lives on the line. Yes the business will be shuttered eventually, but others who don't have high standards will continue to open unsafe restaurants. Inspection (and therefore regulation) can actually be seen as a benefit for businesses; we could easily imagine a consumer base that is fearful of trying out the new restaurant on the block since it hasn't been proven to be safe.

The crazy thing is that we already know this. The data is overwhelming for all the benefits of intelligent public sector regulations. I am seriously baffled that right-wing economic idealists don't realize they're pushing for legalized fraud

Even if we accept the idea of self correcting markets for truth, we have to figure out on what sort of time frame they self correct. Is the "freedom" gained worth the damage suffered before the market corrects itself?

I don't even wanna go there. "Self-correcting markets" is one of the biggest lies in history. I'm not going to lend credence to the idea by giving it in the remotest gravitas. It's also retarded since "self-correcting" is ambiguous enough to apply to anything

People need to do some research on slavery, and realize that there is zero difference between right-wing economics and slavery. And this is OBVIOUS, it's just so insanely baffling.


I just have absolutely no clue how people can argue against centralized power then argue FOR centralized power

[wufwugy]

People need to do some research on slavery, and realize that there is zero difference between right-wing economics and slavery. And this is OBVIOUS, it's just so insanely baffling.

I should probably add that it may largely boil down to people simply not understanding things like slavery.

If you ask people, most will probably think the cause of slavery is some kind of moralism or racism, but it's not. It's an effect. The cause of slavery in virtually every form its taken in history is economics and theory that has zero difference from our current right-wing taken to its logical course

Private sector being somehow isolated from government is an illusion. All forms of totalitarianism are based in business monopolies. Capitalism and private enterprise are not revolutionary. They're the backbone of our history's totalitarianism. Socialism and liberalism OTOH, are revolutionary inasmuch as they're a partial return to the way things were before power started becoming so centralized

[Monty3038]

Clearly you are not familiar with the times before regulation where traveling sales men would sell all sorts of unproven and often times dangerous elixirs.

Here's another example for you. Without regulation, there would be no restaurant inspections. Although I, being on the side of the restaurant, normally view inspections as an annoyance, they are necessary. Without them a place can serve unsafe food and put peoples lives on the line. Yes the business will be shuttered eventually, but others who don't have high standards will continue to open unsafe restaurants. Inspection (and therefore regulation) can actually be seen as a benefit for businesses; we could easily imagine a consumer base that is fearful of trying out the new restaurant on the block since it hasn't been proven to be safe.

Even if we accept the idea of self correcting markets for truth, we have to figure out on what sort of time frame they self correct. Is the "freedom" gained worth the damage suffered before the market corrects itself?

Ok, I see your point about the travelling salesmen, but somehow society survived those as well. Ok, yes, some regulation is necessary. In some industries I will give you some of that. But let's not get it out of control either... obviously governing is a compromise, between extremes of total control and no control.

I'll bow out, as it appears that we won't get to a point where we agree, as I have views that I'm pretty well stuck with, even though I try to be open minded and learn as much as possible, it seems more like preaching than teaching though, and I'm not getting the time to put into the conversation and the fact remains that we will just disagree.

Thank you for discussing it and trying to educate me a little as well.