[rendall]

> Ultimately the only way to guarantee quality would be to vote for politicians who support strong regulations and a strong regulatory apparatus.

Speaking as a socialist-leaning libertarian, I'mma have to take a hard disagree on this. Let the companies have a mix of terrible quality and great quality as they wish, and let the market itself decide which products and companies succeed or fail

Let a private company, say, Consumer Reports or Vegan International, give their imprimatures to quality.

A government, in this specific case of toy drones, is a bit heavy-handed, in my opinion. Would "quality specs" work? Would they be subject to political whims? Would a connected company be able to overwhelm the governmental department dedicated to the quality control of toy drones?

Edit: I promise, despite the proximity of "socialist" to "libertarian" in my preamble, this is not an ideological stance. If you have a better idea, I will change my mind! I'm fine with a downvote, but don't just smash it because you disagree. Tell us why :)

[username90]

There is a reason you aren't afraid of getting poisoned when you eat at restaurants, and it isn't because every restaurant owner cares about poisoning you but because the government have made the common practices which led to food poisoning illegal.

[rendall]

Here is an upvote for engaging.

Kind of a non-sequitur, no? I was talking about toy drones.

[com2kid]

> Kind of a non-sequitur, no? I was talking about toy drones.

Batteries are regulated, as is the type of paint used in kids toys.

Even with regulation companies still try to sneak in lead paint(!) and batteries occasionally burst into flame.

No regulation would mean parents would have to carry around lead paint test kits...

Review sites cannot keep up with the deluge of brands, and some aspects of product quality, such as longevity, are impossible for reviewers to adequately test in a reasonable amount of time. (A review that certifies a dish washer model last sold 10 years ago will indeed last 10 years isn't of much use!)

And in regards to a comment below, those toy drones likely charge with USB!

[rendall]

People keep bringing up batteries, paint, USB, restaurants. We were talking about toy drones. Focus, people

[com2kid]

Toy drones have paint, batteries, and a USB port.

Toy drones are literally painted plastic, some spinning painted plastic, a battery, a USB port, a micro-controller, and some motors.

[rendall]

The original assertion was "Ultimately the only way to guarantee quality would be to vote for politicians who support strong regulations and a strong regulatory apparatus". I disagreed this is the only way to ensure quality. Now people are talking about batteries and restaurants. The original assertion was about quality, not safety

[LargoLasskhyfv]

Now append some eco to your leanings and see that this sort of free market experimentation isn't sustainable, if you don't want to end under the great garbage avalanche like in the movie "Idiocracy". Or be filled with microplastics, which contain endocrine disruptors, which are not good for anyone/thing.

[baq]

yeah it'd make sense if you disregard externalities.

i sure don't want the usb charger market to sort itself out by the metric of which products burn my house down faster.

[rendall]

The discussion was toy drones, not USBs.

[baq]

does it make any difference to my point?

[rendall]

The assertion I responded to was that the only way to ensure "quality" was to support government regulation. I disagreed. Using the heavy hand of government to be sure that these toys don't break within a day is overkill. I suggested an alternative

Rather than argue against that specific point, people began arguing against another easier point: that government regulation protects us from dangerous things

While true, it's a distracting non-sequitur. Argue against what I said, not against a stupider argument that I did not say