"The free market solution to
consumer protection is
unlimited liability."
Corporate liability is virtually
unlimited as in my experience, or
for that matter McDonalds when
they heat up the coffee. The
greatest protector of the
consumer is the value invested
in the corporate brand. Fimrms
work very hard to keep the
brand burnished. Look what
happened to Firestone on
trumped up charges about a few
tires out hundreds of millions
produced. Killed the company.
Or Wendy's and the finger. The
brand was tarnished for weeks.
The value in the brand keeps
almost all we consum safe and
wholesome. Sometimes we
entruat the retailer in lieu of the
brand, like kirkland or Trader
Joes. There is wellspring of
consumer protection.
So how about facing the
possibility that liability is not
really the the reason there is a
widespread anti corporation
sentiment among self identified
liberals.
Politics and religion both share
a vision of a better world.
Believers in socialism or liberty
both have strong convictions
that may be held religiously. To
extend the religious analogy to
this discussion, is it possible that
presumptions of corporate evil
have a religious component? In
this analogy , Corporations are
the Force Of Sata. Abolishing
liability limitation is like holding a
cross of silver before Satan thus
killing the Beast and bringing
Salvation.
So again I ask, would a
voluntary group of individuals
working together to make a
product such as oil or cars or
food be ok???
Do you think that stockholders
should have liability. Ok, we
make stockholders liable. That
hobbles the stock market, but
we still need to eat, etc, so more
voluntary organizations will end
up being privately held with
capital only coming internally or
from the banks. Make the banks
liable, now I am all for that.
As a related matter, governmet
regulation is invited by large
corporations to avoid liability.
That is why Nixon signed the
OSHA act. I could go on for
pages about how voluntary
regulation with reasonably
applied tort law has worked
better in the post world war II
period and continues to protect
workers in many areas where
OSHA fails, but thats a whole
other thread.
"And the free market solution to
workers' rights
is unions and worker-run
businesses."
Again, no problem with Unions
so long as no coercion is
involved, and people not
signature ot prior contract who
wish to cross picket lines are
permitted to do so without
physical interference or credible
threat. Nothing wrong with
worker run companies from a
moral or political basis. On a
practical level, they unfortunately
usually don't work out well for
the workers, but sometimes they
do.
Public unions are a difficult
matter because the employer's
funds are derived from coercion.
The public unions benefit from
that coercion and when they are
permitted to participate in the
political process, can influence
the degree to which resources
are coercively extracted from the
public and distributed to the
government workers. As a
matter of nearly undisputed fact,
public unions have worked hard
to increase the size of
government and thus increased
the extraction by force of
resources from the public in the
form of taxes, or when federally
funded, inflation. The taxes and
inflation fall on the lives, hopes,
and dreams of everyone not
working for the government, The
burdens fall especially hard on
the poor, the elderly and the
disabled, especially those trying
to live an above subsistence life.
Not as a libertarian, but as
consumer of City services, the
union rules that absolve
accountability make riding MUNI
often frustrating, especially on
the days before or after a
holiday. Also the deplorable
condition of Delores park may in
part be due to difficulty in
holding City employees
accountable for job
performance.
And so when I stand out in the
wind and rain waiting for the 38
that never comes on January 2,
I quietly in my inner soul thank
the transit union for the
opportunity to commune with
Nature in all her glory.
So once again, are private
organizations that gather to
produce goods and services a
bad thing.