Lower Labor Costs Now!

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Because the FDA testing found potential problems. Why weren’t the companies testing every lot and just doing the minimum mandated by the FDA?

Now Zap, do you really need someone to hold your hand and tell you life is risky and to be careful?

Why do you think the government has any more incentive to protect you than a business who relies on your continued consumption of their products.

We don’t need more regulations that could be covered by malpractice and fraud.[/quote]

Business do not rely on my continued support, they regularly close the doors. There are plenty of get rich quick people that will be more than happy to sell substandard products as long as they can get away with it and then move on and do it again. Modern forms of transportation have destroyed your mythical way of life.

[quote]tg2hbk4488 wrote:
We aren’t saying we need more or that we even need it in its current state. We are saying that it needs to EXIST in some form
[/quote]

Theoretically, all that is needed is a just manner to pursue violations of life, liberty, and property. One law could cover it. And really, the State isn’t a necessity for it.

Classical economics deals off the principles of the market system and supply and demand and things liek this…

…but Smith also wrote about how consumer and producers need morals for this to work. They can not be greedy or else the system will faulter

Hate to tell you. people are greedy. The market cant self regulate totally because of this. Price, supply, demand may be able to regulate but the market has flaws because of this lack of moral discipline

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Business do not rely on my continued support, they regularly close the doors. There are plenty of get rich quick people that will be more than happy to sell substandard products as long as they can get away with it and then move on and do it again. Modern forms of transportation have destroyed your mythical way of life.[/quote]

Caveat emptor; but still no one has the right to defraud anyone else of their property.

I think you desire to protect by prevention but this is unrealistic in many cases. We must regulate our own behavior and worry about pursuing crime only after it has happened. We cannot restrain free people from pursuing their own interests just because we are afraid something bad might happen.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Business do not rely on my continued support, they regularly close the doors. There are plenty of get rich quick people that will be more than happy to sell substandard products as long as they can get away with it and then move on and do it again. Modern forms of transportation have destroyed your mythical way of life.

Caveat emptor; but still no one has the right to defraud anyone else of their property.

I think you desire to protect by prevention but this is unrealistic in many cases. We must regulate our own behavior and worry about pursuing crime only after it has happened. We cannot restrain free people from pursuing their own interests just because we are afraid something bad might happen.[/quote]

What happens if someone does defraud? Do you trust the courts and lawyers to be successful?

Where is the FDA restraining free people from pursuing their own interests by requiring them to meet hygienic standards?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Because the FDA testing found potential problems. Why weren’t the companies testing every lot and just doing the minimum mandated by the FDA?

Now Zap, do you really need someone to hold your hand and tell you life is risky and to be careful?

Why do you think the government has any more incentive to protect you than a business who relies on your continued consumption of their products.

We don’t need more regulations that could be covered by malpractice and fraud.

Business do not rely on my continued support, they regularly close the doors. There are plenty of get rich quick people that will be more than happy to sell substandard products as long as they can get away with it and then move on and do it again. Modern forms of transportation have destroyed your mythical way of life.[/quote]

Why would you buy from those companies?

I would expect the reputation of a company to become much more important if the government wasn´t building a false sense of security which often is not warranted.

Especially in the age of the Internet consumer watch groups practically form instantaneously whenever there is a problem.

Then, agencies like the FDA slow scientific progress down.

Unfortunately only the lives the FDA saves are counted, they are never held accountable for the lives that could have been saved were it not for the FDA, because it was not the FDA that killed them, but cancer, Parkinson’s or whatever.

That the FDA was instrumental in making research in these areas next to impossible is something almost noone has on the radar.

Obviously there is some sort of optimal trade off, but I do not expect a government official to find it.

[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Because the FDA testing found potential problems. Why weren’t the companies testing every lot and just doing the minimum mandated by the FDA?

Now Zap, do you really need someone to hold your hand and tell you life is risky and to be careful?

Why do you think the government has any more incentive to protect you than a business who relies on your continued consumption of their products.

We don’t need more regulations that could be covered by malpractice and fraud.

Business do not rely on my continued support, they regularly close the doors. There are plenty of get rich quick people that will be more than happy to sell substandard products as long as they can get away with it and then move on and do it again. Modern forms of transportation have destroyed your mythical way of life.

Why would you buy from those companies?

I would expect the reputation of a company to become much more important if the government wasn´t building a false sense of security which often is not warranted.

Especially in the age of the Internet consumer watch groups practically form instantaneously whenever there is a problem.

Then, agencies like the FDA slow scientific progress down.

Unfortunately only the lives the FDA saves are counted, they are never held accountable for the lives that could have been saved were it not for the FDA, because it was not the FDA that killed them, but cancer, Parkinson’s or whatever.

That the FDA was instrumental in making research in these areas next to impossible is something almost noone has on the radar.

Obviously there is some sort of optimal trade off, but I do not expect a government official to find it.

[/quote]

This is a joke, isn’t it?

In this age we have no idea what comes from where. Many companies do not even know who made which part for their product as they buy the same part from multiple suppliers.

[quote]tg2hbk4488 wrote:
Classical economics deals off the principles of the market system and supply and demand and things liek this…

…but Smith also wrote about how consumer and producers need morals for this to work. They can not be greedy or else the system will faulter

Hate to tell you. people are greedy. The market cant self regulate totally because of this. Price, supply, demand may be able to regulate but the market has flaws because of this lack of moral discipline[/quote]

That is not what Smith wrote and I have the original on my bookshelf.

This is what he wrote:

But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore, endeavors as much he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good . It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.

a) misrepresenting Smith is not good

b) expecting to get away with it is worse

c) I highlighted the part that might interest you most.

d) emphasis mine

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
What happens if someone does defraud? Do you trust the courts and lawyers to be successful?
[/quote]
If someone is defrauded then they should have a right to sue for damages. Under a libertarian system of justice the guilty pay and not the victim or even innocent bystanders (taxpayers). Victims must come forward and ask for restitution; in the event of a wrongful death then the victim’s friends or family must do it.

I don’t trust any organization that says it has my best interests at heart. No one can have my interests at heart better than myself.

[quote]
Where is the FDA restraining free people from pursuing their own interests by requiring them to meet hygienic standards?[/quote]

How do arbitrary hygiene standards help you?

If a drug manufacturer or food producer does not follow some sort of hygiene standard don’t you think he would be punished by the market through a loss of profit? There are many consumer advocacy groups that make it their mission to do this. These are free market enterprises and not from the dictates of government.

If a consumer is hurt wrongfully then that is a separate matter.
Besides, it’s not like people can evade justice for ever. Technology ensures this.

[quote]tg2hbk4488 wrote:
…but Smith also wrote about how consumer and producers need morals for this to work. They can not be greedy or else the system will faulter
[/quote]
I am not sure about your Smith reference…

The market does not need to be regulated; it is self regulating by default. It is precisely the price system that does this. This is why it is imperative to the market to have an unhampered pricing structure. Without it investors are too prone to misallocation; viz. cheap credit. Morality has nothing to do with economic law.

Greed may exist in the market place but when does self interest become greed? How exactly does man regulate that? We cannot regulate virtue; we especially shouldn’t look to immoral institutions like government to do it for us.

The political philosopher Frederic Bastiat put it nicely, albeit in French, what is immoral for the individual is also immoral for the State.

Theft is immoral yet taxation is not? Slavery is immoral yet conscription is not? Murder is immoral yet war is not? These are all actions undertaken by government to assert its collective will. I could not think of a worse moral authority than government.

Lifticus, Orion, how do you reconcile your positions with monopolies, dumping, economies of scale and other things that privileges the big dogs? Do you write that off as necessary evils?

Would love to hear your take on this.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

If a drug manufacturer or food producer does not follow some sort of hygiene standard don’t you think he would be punished by the market through a loss of profit?..
[/quote]

What the hell does he care? He has made his fortune.

I am dead.

[quote]

Besides, it’s not like people can evade justice for ever. Technology ensures this.[/quote]

lol.

You live in fantasyland my friend.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Lifticus, Orion, how do you reconcile your positions with monopolies, dumping, economies of scale and other things that privileges the big dogs? Do you write that off as necessary evils?

Would love to hear your take on this.[/quote]

Monopolies cannot happen without protectionism. Economies of scale are not immoral. In a free society anyone is free to compete with anyone else. We cannot level the playing field for competition by infringing on property rights. If a company becomes a monopoly through moral action then there is no problem but it is highly unlikely to happen as long as competition is allowed.

The non-aggression axiom is the litmus test.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
What the hell does he care? He has made his fortune.

I am dead.
[/quote]
He cares because he has everything to lose – including his life. People do not get rich by immoral behavior without being protected by someone else.

How long do you think people will stand by and let such things happen?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
What the hell does he care? He has made his fortune.

I am dead.

He cares because he has everything to lose – including his life. People do not get rich by immoral behavior without being protected by someone else.

How long do you think people will stand by and let such things happen?[/quote]

Are you kidding me? This was the way of the world in the “good old days”.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Monopolies cannot happen without protectionism. [/quote]

I’m no expert by any means, but I understand that most economists distinguish between natural and artificial monopolies. And the former doesn’t seem to be much affected by governmental intervention.

Morality is relative, so I won’t go there. What is certain, is that economies of scale increase the social divide. Something that’s not particularly healthy.

Agreed.

Morality is certainly not a concern for companies as we know them, so your point is moot.

Unrelated question: where do you stand on patents? Copyright? Are you for governments enforcing those?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Are you kidding me? This was the way of the world in the “good old days”.[/quote]

There is no singular “way” in which people behave. People will not tolerate aggression indefinitely when they have the means to defend themselves against it.

Why do you think government historically has had the monopoly on the ownership of arms?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Are you kidding me? This was the way of the world in the “good old days”.

There is no singular “way” in which people behave. People will not tolerate aggression indefinitely when they have the means to defend themselves against it.

Why do you think government historically has had the monopoly on the ownership of arms?[/quote]

Oh please. Just look at the history of the USA and the robber barons, company towns and the like. 10 armed hired goons beats one armed citizen. People don’t band together and overthrow oppression until it becomes horrendous.

[quote]lixy wrote:
I’m no expert by any means, but I understand that most economists distinguish between natural and artificial monopolies. And the former doesn’t seem to be much affected by governmental intervention.
[/quote]
The only thing that matters is how the monopoly occurred.

Aggression in any shape or form is immoral. That is why I am anti-State. It cannot be carried out except by immoral means.

Is there a difference in economies of scale and someone who was born naturally with the means to achieve greater than someone else? Does this not also create a social divide?

It does not makes sense to me that we would want to punish successful business for doing what made them successful in the first place if they operate with compunction and morality. They only could have got that way by meeting the demand of the consumer. It should not matter that they were benefited by some natural occurrence.

Sure it is. They know they cannot aggress against their customers and stay in business indefinitely; that some try to get away with it is besides the point. There are avenues for seeking restitution when this occurs. I cannot think of one company that has ever done this and stayed in business.

[quote]
Unrelated question: where do you stand on patents? Copyright? Are you for governments enforcing those?[/quote]

Actually, it is very related. I don’t believe in copyright or patents. Just because I might have been the first to utter a phrase does not mean I own it and should be the only one to profit from it. Patents are just an other form of protectionism that stifle competition. No one can own an idea because it is impossible to prove where it first occurred. It isn’t property until someone applies their labor to produce something from that idea. What is produced is property; the idea itself is not.

Besides, most copyright laws only protect big recording industry executives’ profits and not the actual “artists” income (there are cases where the artist has been sued by his recording label for copyright infringement). Most copyright cases can be tried as theft if someone’s property has been violated. For example, stealing a recording from a medium and transferring to another medium and passing it off as ones own is theft.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Oh please. Just look at the history of the USA and the robber barons, company towns and the like. 10 armed hired goons beats one armed citizen. People don’t band together and overthrow oppression until it becomes horrendous.[/quote]

The point is that people should be free to protect themselves against aggression. I cannot answer the question why they choose to act or not – and certainly, neither can history.