[CamperBob2]

One of the failings of the libertarian ideal.

Did you actually read the article before you posted this comment? You do understand that these findings were brought to light by Bloomberg, a private organization, and not by a government agency, right?

This is a flawless example of libertarian market regulation in action.

[jamroom]

I think a lot of people believe (rightly or wrongly) that in a "true" libertarian ideal it is "buyer beware" - the idea that bad companies will go under because people will stop buying their products - however there is collateral damage while they are sinking :/

[CamperBob2]

At some point you have to trust that most people and organizations are basically ethical. If that weren't true, then government would be no solution either.

Unfortunately it's true that there will be some "collateral damage" before fraudulent dealings come to light. But the only sure way to avoid it would be to bind the market with so much regulatory red tape that nothing new would ever be created. This is why we have one set of regulations for people looking to sell hand cream, and another for people looking to build nuclear power plants.

[stormbrew]

> If that weren't true, then government would be no solution either.

The idea behind modern democratic government is quite literally that this isn't true and that an organization that holds people's lives in its hands must be accountable to those people in a fair and equitable way. I have a vote in government. I do not have any reasonable sway over the behaviour of a multibillion dollar corporation. In so far as I place my trust in any organization (which I believe is prone to corruption), I place it in the one I have more voice in.

[CamperBob2]

The idea behind modern democratic government is quite literally that this isn't true...

Sounds like Benjamin Franklin would agree, at least superficially. ("Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.") But if you read a little more carefully, what he's really saying is that a free society depends on the sort of people who don't need an immensely powerful government to micromanage their lives.

... and that an organization that holds people's lives in its hands must be accountable to those people in a fair and equitable way.

Which it is. Have you read the article?

I have a vote in government. I do not have any reasonable sway over the behaviour of a multibillion dollar corporation. In so far as I place my trust in any organization (which I believe is prone to corruption), I place it in the one I have more voice in.

Yes, I think we've all seen how much of a "voice" we have in government.

[nfoz]

> Yes, I think we've all seen how much of a "voice" we have in government.

And as a Canadian, I feel that it is pretty reasonable.

Maybe governments can only be effective at a certain scale. But also, some systems are more effective than others. And also "how much of a voice I feel I have in government" is a group-psychology question that is difficult to consider objectively.

shrug!

[stormbrew]

I'm not replying to the article, I'm answering a very specific statement in the comment I'm replying to. Hence why I quoted it.

My voice may be limited in government, that still doesn't mean the alternatives are better. If you want to convince me otherwise have at, but aimless disappointment doesn't make things better.

[nickik]

Have you ever studied political science, political economy, voting theory or any of these subjects?

Government is not automatically fair and equitable because you vote. That's 1 grade level analysis.

> I do not have any reasonable sway over the behaviour of a multibillion dollar corporation.

Actually that is false. You spend all your money and you can choice not to spend on any particular object. For many companies, your $$$ are a bigger share of their profits then the share of your vote (consider that lots of products you buy are from the same company).

Additionally, something that you ignore, is that you share most of the same demands with all other consumers of the same product. While with voting you have totally different needs.

Plus, you can vote only a very limited amount of times and you have to consider 1000s of issues to consider. Can you tell me what the presidential candidates positions on Souther California Bean subsidy program are? Did you no that this program existed?

Government spends about 30-50% of the GDP and you get to vote a couple of times per year at most. While with the rest of your money, you are literally making more choice every day.

Lets get back to the shared interest point. All buyers of a product the same demand for correct labeling, good quality and so on. Thus collective action happens automatically without coordination. In case of fraud collective action is far easier as well. Coordination for collective action is also possible in the form of legal action.

What do you do if the FDA does you wrong? Send out letter of complaint?

Just imagen if all the products you want to consume in the next 4 years, you get two shipping containers and you have to pick one. Neither of the containers has much you like in it, but if you don't pick you will just get one at random. Also when you pick one, about 50% of the time you will not get that one anyway. Have fun eating eating vegan gluten free hamburgers the next year.