The way to show government should intervene into personal lives

[wufwugy]

The government has information that consumers might not.

This goes both ways if we're talking individual consumers. If we're talking private sector, the only information it doesn't have that the government has is government secrets. And there is a ton of information that the private sector has that government doesn't.

I assume you're referring to trade organizations and various "certifications" that exist within industries. I think you're saying that a private conglomerate of participating meat vendors could come up with some kind of entity that dictates standards. Meat vendors could advertise their participation in such an entity, and that could give consumers peace of mind when buying their products.

Sure, sounds fine. But how does a consumer verify the integrity of that regulatory entity? You see a piece of meat and it says "Meat Council Approved" on the package. How does the consumer know what the Meat Council is? How does the consumer know what their standards and practices are? What's stopping a shady non-member meat vendor from having some stickers printed up saying "Approved by the Council of Meat"? How does the consumer know that the Council of Meat is shady and the Meat Council is not?

Now let's say you actually have an answer for all of that and can explain how a consumer could easily recognize the difference and that market forces would categorically eliminate exploitation. Now the consumer has to buy milk. Then bread. Then apples. Then gasoline. Also a car, house, dry cleaning, birthday cake and sheetrock screws.

Do you expect the consumer to be informed as to the integrity of private regulators within the milk, bread, apple, gasoline, auto, construction, dry cleaning, cake, and metal hardware industries?

The private sector already quality controls like this and other ways.

Or is it more practical, safer, and more effective if there is a single entity that consumers can turn to in every case.

This gets to the original question of the OP. Why do you think the government is more efficient at this than the private sector?

And that entity exists without a profit motive, but with skin in the game in the form of a mandate to protect and enhance personal freedom.

Skin in the game is when somebody receives the benefit or the consequences of his actions. Being given a mandate doesn't mean you have skin in the game unless you bear the cost of success or failure of achieving that mandate. As we see regularly, government and bureaucrats have skin in the game in a very weak form at best.

[BananaStand]

This goes both ways if we're talking individual consumers. If we're talking private sector, the only information it doesn't have that the government has is government secrets. And there is a ton of information that the private sector has that government doesn't..

Do consumers have that information? Do you trust the private sector to share that information with you? How do you know that the the private sector is employing standards and practices that meet your individual requirements.

Look up "Tylenol deaths 1982". You'll find articles proclaiming a silver lining to that incident in that it forced drug manufacturers to improve their processes and implement more consumer protections.

But none of that happened until some kids died. Don't you think it would be better if the government insisted on those improved procedures in the first place?

The private sector already quality controls like this and other ways.

Only when they really have to. The 1982 incident wasnt' just tylenol. It inspired MANY copycat incidents across the entire industry. Are you confident that every single firm in the industry implemented the proper procedures to protect consumers from harm?

This gets to the original question of the OP. Why do you think the government is more efficient at this than the private sector?

Centralization.

Skin in the game is when somebody receives the benefit or the consequences of his actions. Being given a mandate doesn't mean you have skin in the game unless you bear the cost of success or failure of achieving that mandate. As we see regularly, government and bureaucrats have skin in the game in a very weak form at best.

Ummmm, what about democracy. If the gov't fails it's mandate....usually re-elections are tough.

[wufwugy]

Do consumers have that information? Do you trust the private sector to share that information with you? How do you know that the the private sector is employing standards and practices that meet your individual requirements.

Consumers make up the private sector. When we speak in aggregates (which we are), the private sector adjusts to all available information.

Look up "Tylenol deaths 1982". You'll find articles proclaiming a silver lining to that incident in that it forced drug manufacturers to improve their processes and implement more consumer protections.

But none of that happened until some kids died.

This is because new information emerged that changed valuation.

Don't you think it would be better if the government insisted on those improved procedures in the first place?

Sure, it would be better if it wasn't wishful thinking. How can a government adjust for something it doesn't know to adjust for in the first place?

Only when they really have to. The 1982 incident wasnt' just tylenol. It inspired MANY copycat incidents across the entire industry. Are you confident that every single firm in the industry implemented the proper procedures to protect consumers from harm?

My previous explanation of variation in values and budgets means that I do not think every firm does this, because producers and consumers derive marginal benefits differently. Some more highly value less stringent quality and others more highly value more stringent quality.

Regarding "proper procedure", what is that? How do you know if something is proper unless by what people freely choose?

Centralization.

How does that provide for more efficiency of allocating resources to food safety? We shouldn't ignore the opportunity costs and how people often value other things more than food safety with the same funds/effort, but let's do it anyways and just focus on food safety alone.

Ummmm, what about democracy. If the gov't fails it's mandate....usually re-elections are tough.

Like I said, the skin in the game is very weak. There isn't a total absence of skin in the game in government, though it is quite weak.