|
|
|
|
|
|
by wav-part
2710 days ago
|
|
|
Businesses did not make buildings safer just because someone told them to. It is naturally considered a bad idea to kill your customers. Businesses would always create an environment that generate more profit. Safer establishments are one of many ways. Businesses would _always_ stay ahead of any bureaucratic recommendations/requirements, because they have the incentives. Rather misguided/outdated laws are real problems, because gov lacks the (strong enough) incentive. > The cost of low-trust in a modern economy is huge. So you dont trust anyone unless gov tells you to ? |
|
|
I disagree, and I believe the evidence supports me. Buildings became fire safe AFTER regulation and enforcement in country after country.
It is naturally considered a bad idea to kill your customers.
Yet in China, the milk powder suppliers killed their customers and now nobody trusts the milk. Likewise various other foods and also medicines in China. Instead, people spend a fortune smuggling safe food across borders. This is just one example amongst many. The same story exists in country after country.
So you dont trust anyone unless gov tells you to?
The gov doesn't have to tell me who to trust. I live in a country with strong protection laws. I live in a country where buildings get inspected and dangerous buildings shut down. I live in a country where I can trust the food I buy. There is not a government approved list of safe food shops. The government doesn't have to tell me which milk powder is safe; the government enforces a system in which I can trust, and in doing so create prosperity and safety together. I trust; I don't need a gov approved list, because I can buy food on the assumption that it's all safe by default. If I was living in a low-trust society, where the government was ineffective, that's when I would need a list of known safe sources.
You are arguing from a libertarian ideology. I don't have an ideology; I only have evidence.