The free market will protect them.

If foods are poisoned by unsafe storage, people will stop buying from that company, and the company will fail or change.

Just let the free market work. It only takes a few thousand deaths to weed out the bad apples.

>>805887
Sounds like a plan;

>>805887

Wouldn't it be better to use government coercion to prevent those deaths in the first place?

>>805898
like how the government prevented lead toys from China?

It took private consumer agencies like consumer reports to out that one.

>>805898
Then the company wouldn't fail because it wouldn't make a mistake that would cause it to lose all of it's money.

What if I know the risks and am willing to accept them. Will I still be denied?

>>805915

You're willing to let some people die just to see a company fail? What are you, a cartoon villain?

>>805922
Why would you take huge risks like poisoning with no possibilities of benefits?

>>805927
Free market man.

>>805887

Also everyone harmed by said poisonous food, or drug will sue the company that made it.

>>805935

Fuck the free market.

>>805866
The free market is dominated by corporations, and corporations are machines whose purpose is generating profit. That individuals make decisions in corporations is insignificant; if a corporate executive decided he'd like to be nice to the poor, he'd be fired and someone willing to play ball would be put in his place. The free market cannot be trusted to care for anyone but those who are already rich.

>>805898

If you think the FDA helps any you're a fool, they kill more than they save due to withholding drugs as long as they can, and then there's still some dangerous shit they green light anyway.

>>805975

You're too optimistic about the free market.

Limited liability makes the argument for the punishment of corporate criminals fairly weak. If they can gamble with a "corporation's" well being rather than their own it's causing them to take excessive risks.

>>805989
free market is run by people

guess what the government is run with?

now which one can we opt out of?

>>806001

I agree, I'm all for visibility.

>>806007

I don't care which one you can opt out of.

I just want my government regulated products, dammit. I don't want to fear getting food poisoning.

>>805989
You're too optimistic about the government

I think it's funny how some think that people that work in companies are assholes, while those that work in the government are angels.

>>805855
HhH
t+T
TTT
pPp
;.:
///
///
@áA
++T
;,,
Kkk
Ìì|
mmm
Mmm
0oO
Áa@
,.:
5ss
EE€
///

>>806047

I trust the government more than corporations.

>>806056
Why?

>>806026
In that case, what would be your opinion on products being unregulated, but with some type of (highly visible) warning in place to reveal their condition to you?

I don't know why people seem to think companies are going to start dumping rat poison into their food for lulz if the FDA was abolished.

>>806060

One does things for the sake of profit, the other does things for the sake of the law.

>>806071
Because "companies are evil" and "the government is good"

>>806075
>One does things for the sake of profit, the other does things for the sake of rents

Fixed

>>806071

Companies like to put weird and untested chemicals in products when there isn't any regulation. For example, radioactive chocolate during a time when radiation was poorly understood.

>>806060
At least with the government, we have some control over who get's voted in. We have no control over who is in the head of a corporation. No control over what they do either. For them, it's about the bottom dollar. For someone in the government, they care mostly about getting elected again.

>>806071
No, but knowing what I already know about meats, I know just how badly it could get in terms of "Oh, you ran that through the contaminated machine? Three second rule lol! Just shut up and pack it up, Jose."

>>806105
>He believes that elections make politicians do the best for the people

wow
The "if I don't like what you do I will not buy from your company" thing works better than "i may not vote for you in the next election"

Why is it a 'free' market

Yes, I am honestly asking that

With corporations you can get poisoned and die.

What's the worst that could happen with traditional American government regulation?

>>806162
You get poisoned and die from a drug that your benificient government said was safe.

>Companies like to put weird and untested chemicals in products when there isn't any regulation

Not just food, but other types of goods/services are regulated to make sure they are not exploitive of consumers. Banking, advertising, etc.

>>806157
A "free market" generally means trades take place without interference. Consumer protection regulations that prohibit fully voluntary trades from taking place are thus contrary to the idea of a free market. Consumer protections that prohibit defective or dangerous products from being sold as legitimate would, in contrast, not be considered an imposition on free trade, as the buyer doesn't actually desire the trade, but rather a different one that the seller is representing the actual trade as. Of course, to some people a "free market" is simply one where there is no government intervention, in which case any consumer protection would be in violation of it.

>>806182

Are you suggesting that one mistake invalidates the system?

Seriously, I think you are just imagining people dying from government tested drugs.

>>806193
>one mistake

if only

>>806209

Can you even prove that government regulated products poison more people in average than unregulated products?

>>806162

If we get enough government regulation to protect us from everything, we won't be able to afford to buy anything, the governtment will call this a success.

Don't we have police and investigators to investigate deaths. If people start dying from eating Oscar Meyer bologna, arrest the asshats and run them through their bologna grinder. A little accountability goes along way.

Government regulators punish all the innocent people by charging them for protection they don't receive, then letting the culprits off with a fine, maybe a short jail sentence. But hey, it provides alot of union government jobs and makes many people think the government is doing something useful.

The people who argue against consumer protection are the same people who think employers should be able to fire you whenever they want without reason.

>>806238

What the fuck are you going on about? Preventing people from dying is the top priority you asshat.

>>806220

Regulating them kills more than they save because the FDA is forced to withhold drugs as long as possible.

Here's Milton Friedman's take on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZL25NSLhEA

>>806241
I'm for both. THEORY DISPROVED.

>>806220
Why do I need to prove that it's not as effective (without a proper control group) when it's obviously not as effective because it stifles competition in the market.

>>806241

Not no reason. We can't afford your services anymore..so long. Only union government employees get job security no matter how useless they are or no matter that they don't produce anything and taxpayers can't afford them.

>>806238
Letting even a single person die due to unregulated food is completely unacceptable. I guess you want to return to the days when it was legal to sell diseased meat and everybody did it.

>>806241

I'd like to hear why the shouldn't be able to.

>>806259
So they get less support (or some sort of negative reinforcement) when they fail at their assigned duties and some sort of benefit when they perform admirably?

>>806280
Because people shouldn't lose their jobs due to trivial things or because their superior doesn't like them. Its like arguing we should be allowed to fire people for begin black.

>>806241
L2 right to work. Also, I would like for you to employ me- I won't do anything productive but I'll collect a paycheck because you can't get rid of me.

>>806276

We need to ban all private automobiles immediately before a single person dies. The cars are unsafe, the roads are un safe and the drivers are unsafe. 40,000 people a year die in auto accidents.

>government regulated products poison more people in average than unregulated products?

claim is nonsense

>>806311

>Its like arguing we should be allowed to fire people for begin black.

You should be allowed to do that also, it's your company how the fuck is the government going to tell you who to keep or let go?

hHH
t++
tTt
PpP
..,
///
///
áaÀ
T+T
,:.
kKk
Iìì
mmM
mmM
ò0Ó
ÀaA
;;.
Ss$
33E
///

>This thread

What the fuck, I thought you libertarians were all about the people.

Everyday, statism looks more and more attractive.

>>806353
So you support people not being able to earn a living because of the colour of their skin? Racists deserve no rights in this area whatsoever the instant they hurt others with their prejudices

>>806162

Maybe, but you can get a better lawsuit settlement if the government approved it. Watch TV for 5 minutes, see the ad about a wonderful new drug, hear the government mandated disclosures about all the side effect ehich usually sound worse than the symptoms you are suppose to cure with the new drug. Then watch 5 more minutes and see the Law Firm ad saying, call 1-800 XXX XXXX if you OR SOMEONE YOU LOVED took such and such a drug and suffered such and such a side effect.

>>806400 Racists deserve no rights

Eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. Anyone else you'd like to deny rights to?

>>806384
>I thought you libertarians were all about the people.

Why did you ever think that?

>>806415
Don't cherry pick what people say, it makes you look like an idiot.

>>806320
Being lazy and non productive is a valid reason to get rid of someone.

>>806426
So you have no response? Is that because you recognize the hypocrisy of what you were saying or that you're angry that I pointed it out?

>>806311
>Because people shouldn't lose their jobs due to trivial things or because their superior doesn't like them.

Why not? It's called Freedom of Association. And if your employer wants you to quit, they'll be able to get you to quit, in almost every case. You're just making the whole situation a pain in the ass for both parties. The arbitrary employer is already losing money through their policy in any case.

>Its like arguing we should be allowed to fire people for begin black.

Yeah, we need to stop racists from hiring black people, then remembering that they're racist, and then firing the person they just hired. That's a big problem, in 2010.

The prohibition on firing someone because of their race only helps white people. It makes bad black employees more of a liability than bad white employees, by making them harder to fire, and thus makes hiring the average white employee less of a risk than hiring the average black employee.

>>806384
Welcome to the wonderful world of the free market.

>>806400

No, now your putting words in my mouth but I think an employer should be able to fire an employee for any reason they damn well feel like. If he doesn't want to employ niggers or some asshole with a lazy eye that's his prerogative.

ITT libertarians alienate moderates with their true colors.

>>806440
Neither, I see no reason you desevre a valid response if you cherry pick what I said and ignore the rest.