From: feathers@serss0 (Michael Feathers)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Organization: Florida International University, Miami
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:01:05 GMT

In article <BxoA7x.AyK@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
>cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>>This is less than clear.  Take, for example, the regulation or law that 
>>forces food producers to print a list of ingredients on their labels.
>>For all practical purposes, once the law is on the books, the expense to
>>the government is zero.  But this law is unlibertarian, so out it goes.
>>Producers may now make "lite" food that is not "lite," low-sodium food
>>that is not low-sodium, and if you don't think they won't, you haven't
>>been reading the news.  The result would seem to be a large increase in
>>the number of fraud suits by consumers against producers, and this does 
>>translate to a government expense in the libertarian order.
>
>Libertarians do not oppose the government's enforcing laws against fraud.
>However, if you think that the FDA has solved the problem of vague
>claims like "lite" and "low-sodium," then you haven't been reading food
>labels.  If you think that producers will not use "good" labels unless
>they are forced by the government, then you haven't heard about free
>market economics.  If you think that the public is not responsible
>enough or capable of determining what a "good" label is (through a free
>market), why would you ever want other people (elected officials)
>mandating what all labels should look like?


Another important point to make is that these spurious lawsuits are not
something to be assumed a priori in a legal system.  In fact it has only
been the last thirty to forty years or so that people have been able to 
seek compensation for every unintentional act of nature that 
occurs within a mile of a deep pocket.

There is a very interesting book out now called _Liability and its
Consequences_.  It tells how we got suit happy, what perpetuates it, and
what its real costs are.  Scores of industries have closed down in America
because the threat of a spurious lawsuit is too real.  One quick trivial
example are the people who used to sell plans for homebuilt airplanes.
I think they were nailed several times not for having faulty designs but
rather for having designs that could be implemented faultily by idiots.
Anyway, they are no longer around.  
 
In my opinion, a libertarian judicial system would require that buyer and
seller share the responsibility for transactions, and in fact that they be 
equal parties under law.  Comsumers can effectively safeguard their interests
by accepting responsibility for their choices, just as producers should
safeguard their interests by choosing whom they do business with.

Unfortunately, this late trend of having the government "guarrantee" 
products by regulating them serves only to stupify the public.  If people
feel that the have a right to make blind choices because "big mother" is
looking out for them, they will make stupid choices.  

I never take advertising at face value, and I don't know any intelligent
people who do.











Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2326 alt.politics.libertarian:1936