Eugene, there's a concept called "implied warranty"; specifically, the warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability mean that, unless explicitly stated, a good that won't work for the intended purpose or is in no shape to do so leaves the seller liable; thus, unless a restaurant explicitly made clear to its patrons these did not apply, the owner(s) would be at fault for any damage its food caused(allergic reactions excepted, usually).
But there is always a chance to cause an alergic reaction. A restaurant owner is never 100% immune against it. So where will he be liable and when not?
There is no need for "regulations" to punish "bad restaurants". In a stateless society restaurants would surely will need to have some kind of private insurance of some kind to "protect" them against such issues you (Eugene) are talking about. So if a customer gets poisoned food, he/she can sue the restaurant and demand a restitution. And restaurant's insurance company will deal with it. It's their job after all.
I for one wouldn't go to a restaurant that doesn't have insurance. Would you eat a meatburger given by some random person to you on a street? I wouldn't. Same with restaurants. They will have to have some kind of certificates in order to stay in business. It will be in demand, like it is now. It doesn't mean it will work 100 percent perfectly. It doesn't mean also, that there must be some external party (state/government) to enforce a law to have such certificates. Ordinary people are best "watchers". We no longer live in a jungle, we have good communication with each other (praise the internet).
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Eugene: But there is always a chance to cause an alergic reaction. A restaurant owner is never 100% immune against it. So where will he be liable and when not?
it's up to restaurant's isurance company to decide. Then again, there are many ways to solve such problems I can't even imagine. There are 6 billion people in a world. Ideas spread rapidly.
Meant to respond to this earlier:
MaikU: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. My personal definition of "trolling" equivalent to your first kind. If someone seems to be asking the same questions because he's honestly not "getting it", then I wouldn't say he's trolling. So I have to conclude that, if Eugene isn't asking the same questions over and over to get a certain reaction from us, he's not a troll in my book. The keyboard is mightier than the gun. Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem. Voluntaryism Forum | Post Points: 5
And I believe this is the latter case.
My personal definition of "trolling" equivalent to your first kind. If someone seems to be asking the same questions because he's honestly not "getting it", then I wouldn't say he's trolling. So I have to conclude that, if Eugene isn't asking the same questions over and over to get a certain reaction from us, he's not a troll in my book.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Eugene: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...
I think maybe an example will help you understand how things would proceed in a free-market society.
A man gets food poisoning after eating at a particular restaurant. He goes to a local court and files a claim against the restaurant owner. Let's say the court ends up holding the restaurant owner liable for the food poisoning. The restaurant owner doesn't want to be held liable for this sort of thing in the future (since it costs him money), so he takes steps to ensure that it doesn't happen again. He may also tell his friends in the restaurant business about what happened, because he doesn't want them to face the same costs. As a result, they take similar steps to prevent their customers from getting food poisoning. The man who got the food poisoning is also motivated to tell people he knows about what happened.
So where's the regulation? No one set down in advance any guidelines by which restaurant owners can be held liable for food poisoning. However, you can see that such guidelines will emerge as more cases are decided. As the guidelines become more and more complex, the profit-making opportunities for people to codify them will become greater and greater.
Autolykos and MaikU, you seem to represent two different opinions.
Autolykos, in your book, restaurants should be held liable for a variety of things. And the courts should be relatively free then to punish restaurants for failure in meeting some basic standards. For example if a cook let a meat stay two weeks in the sun and then gave that meat to the customer, the restaurant should be held liable.
You then say that when enough such court rulings will be assembled, it will be profitable for some private regulator to set this as an industry standard. In that case, how will then restaurants that don't want to follow that standard will be able to operate? After all the courts will basically continue to enforce those "industry standard" rulings as they already enforced them before. Besides, I have still some problems with the fact the restaurants will actually have to follow some guidelines that they don't evne know about, and will only later "discover" them in court.
MaikU, you say that it is practically impossible to find the restaurant liable. The restaurant can do whatever it wants to. So you are against "implied warranty" that BioTube mentioned, and you probably also don't accept criminal negligence as a valid thing. Is that right?
Eugene:Autolykos, in your book, restaurants should be held liable for a variety of things. And the courts should be relatively free then to punish restaurants for failure in meeting some basic standards. For example if a cook let a meat stay two weeks in the sun and then gave that meat to the customer, the restaurant should be held liable.
Keep in mind that I was arguing with the assumption of a stateless society. Also, it's not a question of "basic standards" per se, as if those standards could be anything. The standards would revolve around liability for personal and/or property damage.
Eugene:You then say that when enough such court rulings will be assembled, it will be profitable for some private regulator to set this as an industry standard. In that case, how will then restaurants that don't want to follow that standard will be able to operate? After all the courts will basically continue to enforce those "industry standard" rulings as they already enforced them before. Besides, I have still some problems with the fact the restaurants will actually have to follow some guidelines that they don't evne know about, and will only later "discover" them in court.
Restaurants that don't want to follow that standard will still be able to operate, strictly speaking. But they'll eventually go out of business once the liability costs become too great to bear.
If you're running a business or want to start one, it would make sense for you to find out what would avert most liability claims against you. Also, in cases like food poisoning, the customer may well contact the restaurant itself first. Even in today's world, restaurants typically bend over backwards to appease dissatisfied customers. Much (if not most) of the time, those customers are satisfied, even though they could hold the restaurants liable in court. Don't underestimate the power of reputation and word-of-mouth advertising.
Either way, you misrepresent what I wrote about profit opportunities in codification. The fault is probably mine, though -- I should've been clearer. By "codification", I didn't mean "setting down as an industry standard". I simply meant "compilation and publication". That is, the codifier would simply take prior court cases that were relevant (in his opinion), compile them together, and probably try to infer more general principles from them. Publishing such a compendium would not prima facie establish an industry standard.
In a free-market society, there wouldn't be any regulatory apparatus akin to a state regulatory bureaucracy. A restaurant would only face regular inspections if it 1) had one or more liability insurance policies, and/or 2) it was certified by a private certification business. It would be in a restaurant's interests to have at least one liability insurance policy, as it would help to defray the costs of liability claims. Certification could help it attract and keep more customers.
Eugene: MaikU, you say that it is practically impossible to find the restaurant liable. The restaurant can do whatever it wants to. So you are against "implied warranty" that BioTube mentioned, and you probably also don't accept criminal negligence as a valid thing. Is that right?
I didn't say that "it is practically impossible to find the restaurant liable". Quite the contrary, they are liable, especially if they have insurance of some kind, a writtten contract, to serve only healthy, not poisoned food, have good conditions and so on (like you said). That would be easier for customers to track these "bad restaurants" down. As I mentioned, if a restaurant doesn't have any widely accepted certificate or something, some proof, that they are "legit" so to speak, then it is completely irrational for any human being to eat at this restaurant and expect that nothing bad happens. Maybe doesn't, that's part of a luck. But if it does, then it becomes his problem to find a good arbitrator to get his restitution back for that restaurant.
But if we want to legally sue a restaurant for something, then we gotta first know, if this restaurant has insurance and is widely accepted as good place by the public (again, info could be found on the internet for example). So public opinion also matters very much.
"Restaurant can do whatever it wants" in a sense that there is no state monopoly to regulate what restaurants can not do. There are so many retarded state regulations that I do not approve and would have no problem with a restaurant, that doesn't follow them. Because it is always my decision to eat, not the state's. My body, not the state's. So only I am responsible for my actions. People are the best deterrent against "bad restaurants". I mean here in a broader sense, like opinions and all.
So I don't know, I think we have pretty much similar view with Autolykos here. Just that I am amateur, so I speak only in a "dumb language", I know legal and economic theory very little to offer you more substantial, sophisticated answer.
P.S. What is "criminal negligence"? I checked wiki just now, but I know nothing about it in a libertarian sense, so I don't have a consistent opinion on this matter. Maybe some kind of criminal negligence could be established in a free-market. But the more the concept is ambiguous, the harder it is to enforce it.
P.P.S. oh, I see Autolykos had read my mind.
What would make beaurocrats better judges?
Taco Bell targeted in lawsuit : http://www.ktnv.com/story/13891857/taco-bell-targeted-in-class-action-lawsuit
While the law firm is using the USDA definition of "beef" and the US judicial system in order to sue, it is still quite interesting. It is a private institution that did the research and investigation, and rather than demanding money, the firm is asking Taco Bell to change the menu to reflect the food being served.
You often hear Statists asking what would happen without the USDA. But it was the USDA that kept the definition of taco meat filling low to begin with (40% beef), which allowed Taco Bell to replace so much of the meat filling with cheaper products. And it was the USDA who missed the fact that Taco Bell has been serving "meat" filling below their own designated limit.
I've only taken a cursory look at the situation and I'm not familiar with the law firm that is suing, but it appears to be good publicity for a firm to go after a large chain for no monetary restitution, but rather to protect the masses. Just one of the many ways the market regulates.
Every roof on Earth will eventually topple. You need explicit agreements on certain eventualities. I.e., roof will not collapse within 5 years.