I'd like to hear your opinion about some things. Please read the scenarios below and answer the following questions for each scenario: A. Should the court find the business guilty? B. Should the government regulate the behavior of the business in order to clarify what is expected from the business? 1. A costumer wants to end the contract with a cellular company but the cellular company keeps him waiting for a few weeks each time giving excuses, offering additional deals, and doing everything possible not to end the service. 2. A customer pays a construction company to build a house. A month later the roof topples but doesn't hurt anyone. 3. A customer in a restaurant gets a food poisoning.
well, being an anarchist, it is safe to say that choice B is eliminated as an option...
1) A contract is a contract, if you do not want to deal with the additional fees because you break the contract, then do not sign the contract to begin with.
2)This is clearly a court case sitiuation, even in a government society, this would be left to the courts to decide.
3)Again, this is a court matter
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
1. Yes, because that is fraud.
2. It depends on what was in the contract.
3. No. If I gave my friend a slice of pizza and he got food poisoning, am I guilty of giving him food poisoning?
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo:well, being an anarchist, it is safe to say that choice B is eliminated as an option... 1) A contract is a contract, if you do not want to deal with the additional fees because you break the contract, then do not sign the contract to begin with. 2)This is clearly a court case sitiuation, even in a government society, this would be left to the courts to decide. 3)Again, this is a court matter In regards to the courts, he's asking whether the business should be found guilty. Although I suppose it can change situationally. | Post Points: 20
In regards to the courts, he's asking whether the business should be found guilty. Although I suppose it can change situationally.
In the case of roof toppling, is that really something that should be specified in the contract? I think that's a natural expectation that the roof will not come crashing down. But what if it was after a year or after 10 years? How can the construction company know what is expected from them? Shouldn't it be regulated?
In case of food poisoning. What if the restaurant had horrible sanitary conditions? Shouldn't they be punished? On the other hand it is unfair to punish a restaurant for food poisoning if they did keep sanitary conditions. But how can the restaurant know which sanitary conditions are enough in order not to be liable for food poisoning. Shouldn't it be regulated?
About the cellular company giving you a hard time when you want to quit. How much would be considered a "hard time"? If you had to wait two weeks until they got back to you, would that be considered illegal behavior? What is the exact number? Isn't it unfair not to tell the companies what is the number of days in which they have to get back to the customer if he wanted to be cut off from the service? After all the cellular company has the right to know whether it will be liable in court or not beforehand.
It can be if you have a warrenty...
How can the construction company know what is expected from them Shouldn't it be regulated?
How can a company know whats expected from them? by the market, there is competition and if they want to stay in business, they have to meet the market demands or else they will go out of business. So there is no need for regulation....regulation will only make things worse in the long run...
Again, if businesses do not meet up with the market demands, they will quickly go out of business. If they have unsanitary conditions and you have proof, take them to court. The courts would determine what requirements are necessary in order for sanitary and unsanitary conditions. Thus, there is no need for regulation.
The courts would determine what requirements are necessary in order for sanitary and unsanitary conditions.
Why should unelected judges choose what is sanitary and what is not. Why not give parliament that power? And as I said individuals should know BEFOREHAND what is considered sanitary and what not, I think it is fair.
Individuals can know beforehand if they wanted by requesting reviews on the restaurant, right? why do you need government to do that job for you? Why should unelected judges choose? because they are working for the market, public elected judges work for the State.... BIG difference. The market never fails, once people get that point across, things will be much easier to explain. Also, would say the the free market is more fair than a State's mixed market....
What I mean is that restaurants should know beforehand how sanitary they should keep their kitchen in order not to be later liable in court in case of food poisoning. To know that beforehand you need specific laws, not court decisions.
of course they need laws.... do you think anarchy is anti-law or something? The whole purpose of courts are to obtain laws in society, so there has to be a set in stone law, and that set in stone law is the Non Aggreesion Principal...
Eugene, you do know that common sense usually reigns supreme unless there are statutes overriding it, right? Heck, even if we assume strict liability, the restaurant wouldn't be responsible if they can prove the food was contaminated elsewhere.
Eugene:In the case of roof toppling, is that really something that should be specified in the contract? I think that's a natural expectation that the roof will not come crashing down. But what if it was after a year or after 10 years? How can the construction company know what is expected from them? Shouldn't it be regulated? In case of food poisoning. What if the restaurant had horrible sanitary conditions? Shouldn't they be punished? On the other hand it is unfair to punish a restaurant for food poisoning if they did keep sanitary conditions. But how can the restaurant know which sanitary conditions are enough in order not to be liable for food poisoning. Shouldn't it be regulated? About the cellular company giving you a hard time when you want to quit. How much would be considered a "hard time"? If you had to wait two weeks until they got back to you, would that be considered illegal behavior? What is the exact number? Isn't it unfair not to tell the companies what is the number of days in which they have to get back to the customer if he wanted to be cut off from the service? After all the cellular company has the right to know whether it will be liable in court or not beforehand. If the construction company covered it, the construction job would cost more. If they didn't cover it, you could buy insurance. Your insurance company would likely take into account what construction company you are using and the data on that particular company. If they are a poor construction company, insurance would cost a lot. If they are not an experienced company, insurance would cost even more. If a restaurant is making people sick, welcome to the wonderful world of journalism. A bad news story on sanitation could be a knock-out punch to a restaurant. I've seen it happen several times in my city. My dad owns a restaurant and health inspectors are very harsh because it creates higher demand for their services. This is how it works publicly and privately. Keeping the place clean is > risking bad publicity. If the cellular company is intentionally making you wait, you threaten (if that's the right word) to charge them with fraud and they will likely cease. You don't even have to threaten them. If you took them to court, 10 days of giving you a hard time would cost them at least twice as much as 5 days. 20 days would cost them at least twice as much as 10 days. They wouldn't make enough off of trying to shake a little more change from their gullible customers than they would by providing better service than competitors. | Post Points: 20
If the construction company covered it, the construction job would cost more. If they didn't cover it, you could buy insurance. Your insurance company would likely take into account what construction company you are using and the data on that particular company. If they are a poor construction company, insurance would cost a lot. If they are not an experienced company, insurance would cost even more.
If a restaurant is making people sick, welcome to the wonderful world of journalism. A bad news story on sanitation could be a knock-out punch to a restaurant. I've seen it happen several times in my city. My dad owns a restaurant and health inspectors are very harsh because it creates higher demand for their services. This is how it works publicly and privately. Keeping the place clean is > risking bad publicity.
If the cellular company is intentionally making you wait, you threaten (if that's the right word) to charge them with fraud and they will likely cease. You don't even have to threaten them. If you took them to court, 10 days of giving you a hard time would cost them at least twice as much as 5 days. 20 days would cost them at least twice as much as 10 days. They wouldn't make enough off of trying to shake a little more change from their gullible customers than they would by providing better service than competitors.
I suspect Eugene implies, that government rgulations actually work.. but they don't. Some of them maybe have short term effect. That's what people see. But forget the unseen consequences. And there are much more to it.
Regulations simply slows and dumbs down the market. It's like regulating what shoes people must wear, making some fashion standard and enforcing it. What is poison (or disgusting) for some people isn't necessarily poison (or disgusting) for other people.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Eugene: In case of food poisoning. What if the restaurant had horrible sanitary conditions? Shouldn't they be punished? On the other hand it is unfair to punish a restaurant for food poisoning if they did keep sanitary conditions. But how can the restaurant know which sanitary conditions are enough in order not to be liable for food poisoning. Shouldn't it be regulated?
Two things. One, there is no way to prove that food poisoning is caused by eating a specific food at a specific point in time. If you make the restaurant liable for food poisoning, how do you plan to ensure that it was due to the restaurant's food, i.e. you are punishing the right restaurant? Let's say someone only ate 1 meal the entire day and it was pretty obvious that it was from a particular restaurant. Who is going to be the food poisoning police that verify that someone indeed ate one meal and it was at that restaurant. Do you see how impractical this idea is?
Two, in regards to "horrible sanitary conditions," who exactly decides what these conditions are for every store that exists? The market is absolutely capable of demanding a certain level of cleanliness and a level of transparency to that cleanliness, with no government regulation.
Eugene: About the cellular company giving you a hard time when you want to quit. How much would be considered a "hard time"? If you had to wait two weeks until they got back to you, would that be considered illegal behavior? What is the exact number? Isn't it unfair not to tell the companies what is the number of days in which they have to get back to the customer if he wanted to be cut off from the service? After all the cellular company has the right to know whether it will be liable in court or not beforehand.
Two things. One, the terms of termination can be easily determined in a contract. Two, if this exact scenario were to play out, this particular cell phone company would likely lose a lot of their client base and it would become advantageous for other providers to offer easy termination contracts. The market would correct this problem before you ever had the chance to enact any regulation that would attempt to "solve" this problem.
Eugene:I'd like to hear your opinion about some things. Please read the scenarios below and answer the following questions for each scenario: A. Should the court find the business guilty? B. Should the government regulate the behavior of the business in order to clarify what is expected from the business?
I thought we already went over this. Did you ignore what everyone told you in the last thread you started?
Eugene:1. A costumer wants to end the contract with a cellular company but the cellular company keeps him waiting for a few weeks each time giving excuses, offering additional deals, and doing everything possible not to end the service.
A. Depends. Is the customer taking the additional deals?
B. NA
Eugene:2. A customer pays a construction company to build a house. A month later the roof topples but doesn't hurt anyone.
A. Depends. Did the roof collapse due to inadequate building materials/methods, or were other factors (e.g. weather) involved?
Eugene:3. A customer in a restaurant gets a food poisoning.
A. Depends. Was the food inadequately prepared, or was it contaminated to begin with?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Eugene:In the case of roof toppling, is that really something that should be specified in the contract? I think that's a natural expectation that the roof will not come crashing down. But what if it was after a year or after 10 years? How can the construction company know what is expected from them? Shouldn't it be regulated?
The question to me isn't whether regulations but whence regulations. Also there's the question of who is expecting what from the construction company.
Eugene:In case of food poisoning. What if the restaurant had horrible sanitary conditions? Shouldn't they be punished? On the other hand it is unfair to punish a restaurant for food poisoning if they did keep sanitary conditions. But how can the restaurant know which sanitary conditions are enough in order not to be liable for food poisoning. Shouldn't it be regulated?
Explain what you mean by "punished", please. Otherwise, again there's the question of who is expecting what from the restaurant.
Eugene:About the cellular company giving you a hard time when you want to quit. How much would be considered a "hard time"? If you had to wait two weeks until they got back to you, would that be considered illegal behavior? What is the exact number? Isn't it unfair not to tell the companies what is the number of days in which they have to get back to the customer if he wanted to be cut off from the service? After all the cellular company has the right to know whether it will be liable in court or not beforehand.
For a third time, there's the question of who is expecting what from the cell-phone company.
You seem to be arguing for the one-size-fits-all regulations we labor under today. Why is that? Aren't you aware how contextually different situations can be from one another?
Eugene:Why should unelected judges choose what is sanitary and what is not. Why not give parliament that power?
If history is any guide, parliament simply delegates that power to unelected bureaucrats. But why the emphasis on "unelected" in the first place? Even in such bastions of legal positivism as the US, judges (by and large) still try to find precedents in existing law, even if they're only analogous precedents.
Eugene:And as I said individuals should know BEFOREHAND what is considered sanitary and what not, I think it is fair.
Are you implying that individuals cannot be entrusted to make such determinations on their own? If so, why can't they? And can you explain to us your notion of "fairness"?
hey, Eugene, found this interesting paper. I am reading it myself, I am sure, it is worth it. Check it out
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
The problem as I see it that implied contracts, or in other words expectations, are indeed different in every community. For example an Israeli Arab will not necessarily expect that a roof will not collapse after one month, but a Jew living in northern Tel-Aviv definitely would. But is it fair for the business in each community to have no reference, no guidelines as to what is expected in that community and what can easily turn into a conviction in court? That's where I think local and even federal regulations might be warranted. Think of a restaurant opening in some neighborhood. There are many costs that need to be taken into account. How well should the kitchen be cleaned? Should the cooks wear special hats? Under what circumstances the cooks should wash their hands? Each such sanitary decision reduces the probability that the customers will get food poisoning, but each such decision also costs money. A restaurant owner might decide to ignore all sanitary precautions in order to cut prices. That might be a very bad business decision, but people make bad decisions. Such decision will dramatically increase the probability of food poisoning. In poor neighborhoods where the people expect poor sanitary conditions I don't think the restaurant owner should be liable in court for food poisoning. But in a rich neighborhood where no one expects to get a food poisoning from a restaurant, a restaurant with no sanitary conditions is defrauding the customers. But who is to tell what are the conventions in each neighborhood? If the restaurant owner wants to do everything possible in order not to be later convicted in a court, how will he know what to do? Who is better to provide such guidelines than the local legislative authorities? You might say that private regulating companies would be the best to provide these guidelines and keep the businesses complying, and I agree that they are needed for most regulations. But some things are just common sense. For example it should be common sense for the restaurant to clean its kitchen, especially in a rich neighborhood. Do we really want people to ignore all common sense and require free market regulators in every possible human interaction? On the other hand common sense is not always common, and people should be able to have a reference of what are the common conventions in a particular neighborhood.
You do realize that there are associations that create guidelines not driven by government enforcement, correct?
E.g. ANSI, ISO, ASTM, DIN etc.
And there are people/companies (e.g. me) that may follow them even if it's not forced upon them by others...
FYI - Eugene is a troll on several liberty forums:
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&p=13605027
https://mises.org/Community/forums/t/22232.aspx
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?276066-Some-regulations-scenarios
Eugene:Do we really want people to ignore all common sense and require free market regulators in every possible human interaction?
No, but why do you really want people to ignore all common sense and require government regulators in every possible human interaction?
Eugene:On the other hand common sense is not always common, and people should be able to have a reference of what are the common conventions in a particular neighborhood.
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
@Eugene
What should customers be able to expect from sellers?
Products that are demanded by the market.
What should employees be able to expect from employers
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.
Eugene: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?
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.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
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?
Eugene: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...