From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Regulations
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:57:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <45756@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.200409.18348@nevada.edu> mlcole@nevada.edu (Michael L. Cole) writes:
>>when i go to a resaurant, i *EXPECT* the food i order to be healthy.  i don't
>>really like playing russian roulette with my stomach.
>
>Define "healthy."  Whatever "standard" you impose, some will become sick by
>food meeting the standard, and others can tolerate twice the contamination.
>Even just-washed hands have germs on them.  
>
>			.....................
>
>>i personally feel that "regulations" are necessary to protect innocent 
>>consumers from the fraud that would otherwise run rampant without them in 
>>place.
>
>We do not need so many regulations, but we need ONE law:  If relevant 
>information is withheld, the withholder is liable.  One bad place here
>is that of medicinal chemicals; the regulatory body has probably killed
>more people than all of the misused drugs.
>

Why do we have to wait to die or be seriously injured before being
able to excercise our rights??????????????????????????

What is that adage about an ounce of prevention?????????????????????

And, why should we expect everyone to read _Consumer Reports_ before
they buy things????????????? eat food? buy small consumer products?

SOme people in this country cant read or speak English dont forget.

How why should we rely on private litigation to enforce our rights.
Lawsuits are expensive, time-consuming, unreliable and basically
a crap shoot.  It might be very hard to prove who caused what.

We know the Dalkon Shield injured alot of women, there we massive
lawsuits and not much money was paid off.  (I know JWS is going to
say businesses can buy insurance) but even so, lawsuits are tricky
to prove.

Industry anyway would rather have to rely on one standard so it can
plan for the future.

Then _Consumer Reports_ is used for extra safety.

I kind of thought our govt was supposed to "establish justice"
"ensure domestic tranquility" etc., it cant do that if it
makes you be injured first and then sue.

Next time I go grocery shopping should I have to bring along a huge
thick book full of health info on products? Instead I can pick up
my breakfast cereals and look at them and decide which one gives me
more or less of whatever I want.  I can comparision shop b/c everything
is in unit prices, easy comparision shopping allows the consumer to
be able to compare products and thus hopefully make manufacturers
compete for lower prices.

I have pointed this out in terms of Annual Percentage Rates which
is what banks, car sellers etc. are required to lable loans in
now.  Before, they called them all different things, no one knew
what they were, they were not standard so they wer impossible to
compare.  Now it is easy to cmompare so one should be able to
shop around.

Look at your credit card bill (if you have one) it tells you how it
figures out you balance.  THis is very usefull b/c there are about
six different ways some better than others.  THis is another
area where you could shop around for better terms.  Unfortunately
most people dont know about this and dont.  

Again, I point out that obviously not every regulation is good
but too call for their elimination is irresponsilbe and idealistic
to think that it will somehow increase our freedom.

My freedom is not increased by playing Russian Roulette with what
food I buy.

And, give me a break that people cant figure out safety standards
for food.  They seem pretty good to me.

Whenver there is an occassional outbreak of food poisoning in a
resataurant it is due it seems to restaurants not following
health codes.