5 ms·
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. Alternativ
by 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 agoI 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 agoAgain, 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 agoMaybe... 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, ...