[smsm42]

I don't understand, what's "naive" here? You say something may be poisonous, even at low doses. Poisoning people is a crime. I don't even see the question here.

>>> I don't know whether my restaurant has rats in the kitchen. How could I?

Ever heard of reviews? Critics? Certifications? Yelp? Zagat? Michelin stars? It is fascinating that a grown adult obviously having access to the internet, in 2013, can sincerely claim he doesn't know how to figure out if a restaurant is any good. There's a huge industry built on doing just that. People are complaining they have to many apps on their phone to do that and get confused.

>>>> Trendy, swanky restaurants are routinely shut down for doing very bad things behind the scenes. So clearly they can't.

Successful, prominent politicians are regularly busted for infidelity. So, clearly, spousal fidelity needs government regulation.

[atombender]

You are missing the time component. Reviews don't matter if the effects take a decade to show themselves.

> Ever heard of reviews?

You missed my point: Transparency. A restaurant may get rave reviews and still have a filthy, dangerous kitchen. It's what we, as consumers, don't have access to that matters.

> So, clearly, spousal fidelity needs government regulation.

This is a ridiculous non sequitur. I was arguing that companies obviously could not self-police, since they are doing bad things all the time even with state policing; how is your reply relevant?

[smsm42]

Companies can't self-police. But other people - that care about what companies do - can find out what they do. Just as politician's affairs are found out, for example. So your claim that government coercion is necessary to either find out the information or disseminate it is obviously false - there are existing systems for doing both, and they work quire well - at least, not worse than government ones - where they are applied.

[lobster_johnson]

First of all, in many cases this requires that such entities have interior access. If you can't inspect facilities but only the end product, you become very limited in what you can do.

Secondly, even then, all you can do is disseminate information. You can't enforce anything; you can only try to convince people to vote with their feet.

[smsm42]

A lot of people have "interior access", restaurants are not exactly highly classified CIA facilities. And any certification/review body can request - and obtain, if certification is worthy - such access, without any problem. Did you ever hear, for example, about Kosher certification? How do you think it can be done without access to everything? It can not. Whoever wants to sell on markets that need Kosher or Halal or any other such certification - provides access. Whoever does not - sells to people that don't care about this certification.

>>> Secondly, even then, all you can do is disseminate information. You can't enforce anything

You mean - you can't stop people from buying what they want even if you think it's bad for them, you can only give them information and let them decide for themselves if they're ok with it? Oh horror!!!

[lobster_johnson]

Sure. Kosher certification works because companies cooperate; but the network and trust has taken years and money to build, and it only works because there is enough critical mass in the system for a company to lose by not participating.

[smsm42]

So, you're saying if nobody among the consumers needs these certifications it wouldn't work. And you say it like it is a bad thing?

Of course, this means the government loses a way to enforce arbitrary restrictions that nobody of the consumers actually need but that promote some political or special interest agenda. Tell me please again, how is it a bad thing?