So, I've been reading a lot from the progressives and statists who fault the free market for allowing contaminated eggs to be sold and for fake medical equipment being sold and harming people:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/21/health/policy/21tubes.html?_r=2
hxxp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9003562
How would a libertarian respond to the above accusations?
In addition, I'm certain that the statists would claim that without governmental inspection plenty of people would fall ill or die before people realize the faultiness of the products if the free market were allowed to work. How would a libertarian respond to that argument?
Was it the free market or mass government subsidies that led to 'factory farms' and the various food cartels? Why now, after years of government involvement in food production, does this issue present itself in such a large of fashion?
I thought the government was in charge of protecting us from contaminated food.
FDA commissioner said they going to focus on more prevention instead of reactionary. Sad day indeed for freedom
"FDA commissioner said they going to focus on more prevention instead of reactionary. Sad day indeed for freedom"
I read that somewhere, something to the nature of, the FDA needs to be more proactive instead of reactive. lol.
In a country that consumes some 220 million eggs per day we are worried about the 500 million (less than 1 % of the market of egg consumption) eggs that "may have exposure". Even a high end infection rate would be %10 of the 500 million eggs (50 million eggs) of which we must subtract those which are cooked at tempertaure of 150 degreees coupled with those who are not ate at all.
So in reality i would venture to say there are 10 eggs that is going to kill 10 of the 310 million Americans
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
"How would a libertarian respond to the above accusations?" - 1147196
All this happened while the government was charged with preventing it from happening.
"In addition, I'm certain that the statists would claim that without governmental inspection plenty of people would fall ill or die before people realize the faultiness of the products if the free market were allowed to work. How would a libertarian respond to that argument?"
Once more, that's exactly what's happening while the almighty government is already charged with and given the power to 'protect' us.
And what's the fuss about anyway? Sure, salmonella can be bad if it gets into your blood, or if you're very young or old. But perspective is something to keep in mind, and in reality all this bellyaching is about a couple thousand people, out of a population of hundreds of millions, with a temporary case of the squirts.
In a free market, people will still get the shits. The only difference would be that instead of a massive and costly bureacracy protection would be handled by a decentralized group of private citizens using various methods from certification to investigation.
I'm not going to respond as a libertarian--I'm going to respond as someone that works in the medical device industry (I'm an engineer).
There are unscrupulous people in every industry that are motivated by profit--but you can't outlaw evil people, it's just not possible. The ironic part is that these profits--the margin on some products I've worked on are above 90%--is both caused and enabled by the FDA (affected by the insurance industry but thats a seperate topic). Were the regulations less strict or non-existant many products would be truly commoditized as they simply are not that unique or complicated to manufacture, and prices would fall dramatically. Additionally, overhead for manufacturers would fall in kind and permit these lower margins while still remaining profitable.
I will say that in the absence of the FDA my company wouldn't start selling products negligently as profit seeking behaviour--the one thing I have been impressed with is that the management here is ethical: the patient comes first. The testing the FDA requires on many devices engenders an attitude of doing the least possible verification activities to get devices approved so "obvious" risks may be overlooked (willingly or not). Though, don't assume that if testing weren't required that it wouldn't be done--often we perform testing as risk mitigation entirely independent of FDA regulations.
So that's my opinion from within a market regulated by the FDA, take it with a grain of salt (or truth if you prefer).
It's hard to say that it was regulations that failed, since most regulations never worked in the first place. The first thought of a politician is not whether his plan will actually work, but to stay to the voters that he is doing something.
When labor is under the illusion that it actually needs management, the number of managers explodes. Kind of a paradox, actually: the more people bureaucrats convince that their regulations are necessary, the more statist zombies are recruited to secure centralized power.
How could the free market ever be at fault when there isn't a free market? That doesn't even make sense.
It's like blaming on the financial crisis on free markets. Uh, we don't have free markets.
Communists essentially define "free market" as anything that goes wrong. That automatically puts you on the defensive if you warrant any blame with a direct response. You have to alter the terms of the argument around so that you are attacking the state instead of defending the free market, and neutralizing the nirvana fallacy that nothing should ever go wrong.
Typical fallacy, just because one is against government inspection does not mean one is against inspections. I personally would not buy most foods unless it has been tested or the company or person has a favorable reputation.
Thats because in their view government is never wrong.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/egg-recall-millions-wright-county-eggs-involved-marler/story?id=11430502
They were voluntarily recalled by business - so that speaks a lot for who is more likely to protect you. Why would a company want to create or let alone allow a product of theirs to kill their own customers?
I think a lot of the extreme knee-jerk reactions to these situations is due to the following. Because people believe in the illusion of certainty (brought to you by the government), they also have zero tolerance for anything that goes against that illusion. Since the government itself tends to be filled with such people, you have an inevitable ramp-up of legal authority in the attempt to control things to an ever-finer degree.
It's no wonder that strongly religious people see secularists as arrogating to Man the powers of God.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum