2 ms·

> there's an implicit assumption that anything offered for sale to the public without restrictions is of merchantable quality You gloss over this as if it were

• anigbrowl 11y ago
  So you claim, but it is the sort of thing people would like to be able to rely on and the sort of task they opt to delegate to government. It's nice to fantasize about a libertarian society where markets are unrestricted and consumers have total freedom to buy and sell whatever, but in practice it ends up with people dying because they unknowingly bought shitty products, and demands for effective regulation to ensure some quality control. You can see that happening in china right now with increasing demands for accountability to do with quality-of-life issues rather than just maximizing economic growth. If you think this assumption leads to bad outcomes, pick up a tort law book and read the details of historical cases from when an 'anything goes' mentality was predominant.
  • jMyles 11y ago
    > If you think this assumption leads to bad outcomes, pick up a tort law book and read the details of historical cases from when an 'anything goes' mentality was predominant. I studied this to a non-trivial degree in college during undergrad, though of course not on the level of graduate economic theory or anything. My understanding is that the major markers (such as drug overdose) were at record lows following the Pure Food and Drug Act, a relatively non-intrusive measure that required labeling and some rudimentary testing and inspection, but preceding the FDA and drug prohibition and all the rest. This seems to comport with the world I watch around me. Am I wrong about this?