3 ms·

If I were trying to run a small bakery or confectionary under all the terms (and more, presumably) of your last paragraph, I'd have a hard time believing you to

If I were trying to run a small bakery or confectionary under all the terms (and more, presumably) of your last paragraph, I'd have a hard time believing you took my individual liberty (or that of my customers) very seriously.

tomp 10y ago
Again, something that is solvable with smart regulation. E.g. some rules apply only for businesses with more than $100k turnover, or $1M or whatever. Alternatively, your customers need to sign a statement that they will pay out of pocket for any medical costs resulting from eating your sugar (similar to "sophisticated investors" and hedge funds). But then again, as I said above, I see business as a privilege, not a right. After all, you could also say that your individual liberty is being infringed by taxes - but you can always move to a deserted island, stop using the services provided by the governments, and pay no tax!
- jpindar 10y ago
  >a privilege, not a right One of the most statist phrases ever.
- josinalvo 10y ago
  I agree with you 100%. But that is not usually considered libertarian. A libertarian scheme would usually be like 'certification should be a business, and foods should be certified sugar free by a specific certification company, and bear that company's sugar-free logo'. Which I think is highly impractical
- Kenji 10y ago
  Again, something that is solvable with smart regulation. But then again, as I said above, I see business as a privilege, not a right. Wow. Stop considering yourself a libertarian, seriously. This is authoritarian talk. All I see you arguing for is rules, and if somone points out their flaws, more and 'smarter' rules. This is the exact opposite of libertarianism.
  - tomp 10y ago
    Maybe... But it's way more libertarian than any of today's societies... I mean, we still have so many prohibitions - drugs, prostitution, euthanasia, freedom of speech, ...

tomp 10y ago

Again, something that is solvable with smart regulation. E.g. some rules apply only for businesses with more than $100k turnover, or $1M or whatever. Alternatively, your customers need to sign a statement that they will pay out of pocket for any medical costs resulting from eating your sugar (similar to "sophisticated investors" and hedge funds). But then again, as I said above, I see business as a privilege, not a right. After all, you could also say that your individual liberty is being infringed by taxes - but you can always move to a deserted island, stop using the services provided by the governments, and pay no tax!

jpindar 10y ago
>a privilege, not a right One of the most statist phrases ever.
josinalvo 10y ago
I agree with you 100%. But that is not usually considered libertarian. A libertarian scheme would usually be like 'certification should be a business, and foods should be certified sugar free by a specific certification company, and bear that company's sugar-free logo'. Which I think is highly impractical
Kenji 10y ago
Again, something that is solvable with smart regulation. But then again, as I said above, I see business as a privilege, not a right. Wow. Stop considering yourself a libertarian, seriously. This is authoritarian talk. All I see you arguing for is rules, and if somone points out their flaws, more and 'smarter' rules. This is the exact opposite of libertarianism.
- tomp 10y ago
  Maybe... But it's way more libertarian than any of today's societies... I mean, we still have so many prohibitions - drugs, prostitution, euthanasia, freedom of speech, ...