Corporations a physically capable of inspecting themselves. That does not mean it would protect the public interest.
I see! So privately organized inspectors would certify the cleanliness of food, restaurants, etc, thus ensuring free market efficiency and diligence! But, of course! We need only regard the splendid example of the rating agencies who determined that moldy mortgages rolled into a big ball were a triple-A rated security. Yes, that went swimmingly, didn’t it?
And the restaurants would be paying for the rating - and with the restaurants paying for the rating, the motivating factor for the rating company is to continue to keep their customers - the restaurants - happy.
Then the rating company gets a scandal due to unsanitary conditions, closes down and reopens under a new name - with their old customer list.
Really, sounds more like an extortion racket than a scheme to protect the consumer.
The other business model would be to have the consumer pay to access the rating service. Want safe food, you pay for the rating service that tells you if a restaurant kitchen is cockroach ridden or not.
And how exactly do you know if they’re doing their job properly?
“It’s ratings services all the way down”?
Brilliant. Thank you.
Well, couldn’t you just ask them what percentage of restaurants won’t let them in the front door, or expect exorbitant payments to allow them to check for slime in the nozzle of the soft drink dispenser?
Chances are that if the businesses hate em, they’re doing their job. Of course the same might be said for government run inspections; which many businesses hate.
Solid gold!
I’ll tell you what, send me a check every month and I’ll send you a list of restaurants that are safe to eat at. I’ll send you the names of bad, evil restaurants that won’t let me in to inspect them. I’ll send you pictures of my state-of-the-art lab, full of lots of machines you’ve never heard of, where I conduct my analyses. For a low monthly fee, I offer you peace of mind unsullied by the freedom-destroying hand of government. You can trust me. Honest.
And if you ever get sick I’ll tell you to go pound sand.
Really, I put a bit of effort into this post. Should I have just not bothered? Are any of the anti-regulation folks going to even try to refute it?
I was an excellent post, but I would say that all of the concerns that you raised about the private rating agencies could equally be leveled at government inspectors.
How do I know that they are doing their jobs properly; not on the take, etc. I would seem that a private rating agency would have a financial incentive to make sure that their reputation stays positive.
If the government screws up, who do you blame? The mayor? The prosecutor? The cops? The President? They will just appoint a commission to study the failure that killed the sandwich eating family.
As a matter of fact it is a right under the statutes authorized by the constitution to prohibit racial discrimination. Some people think that oughtent be, and I think they should never have been born, as their politics get my scorn. For being racist fucks.
Funny how you libertarians think no business should ever be compelled to serve anybody they don’t like for any reason, but they’re all going to be just hunky-dory with letting legions of private inspectors rummage through their kitchens. Tell you what, libertarians. Go ahead and have all these wonderful theoretical discussions on how every act performed by any governmental employee is automatically suspect while every person employed by a private business is automatically full of pixie dust, sugar, spice, and everything nice. Go ahead and talk while the grownups run the real world. Rand Paul’s nomination is the best thing to happen in ages- it exposes libertariansim for the pseudo-intellectual immoral fraud that it is.
They already have an answer for that, that they’ve mentioned many times on this thread alone: they think that if said businesses don’t, the refusal will spread amongst potential customers, who’ll decide they don’t trust the restaurant and will stay away in droves, and the place will go out of business. Simple.
(No, not really, as I mentioned just now that I believe. But that’s what they’ve said.)
Case in point: The financial ratings agencies, who are now claiming that their ratings were nothing more than free speech, and thus they cannot be held legally accountable for the ridiculous mistakes that led to their rating those subprime derivatives as AAA investments. This sort of thing is not a fanciful hypothetical from Robot Arm about ratings agencies. It actually happens in real life.
Bullshit. He expressly supported every other provision of the civil rights act.
He doesn’t view the right to be served at any particular private business as a right, hence no violation. If it’s a fundamental right for anyone to be served at any business, you couldn’t refuse anyone service for any reason at all, could you?
Really? So you think the libertarian position would be that slavery is ok? Think about this now.
There’s a significant amount of variation about the subjects you discuss. For instance, the most assholish of libertarians might not think pollution was an issue to deal with. Many reasonable ones consider pollution an initiation of force - either against the property owner of some land or resource you’re corrupting, or for more generalized pollution like air pollution, an initiation of force against society as a whole.
Which parts, specifically?
These aren’t principles of real libertarianism. Getting beaten or shot is obviously and always a crime. Many libertarians would support all sorts of pollution laws. Many support giving as much information as possible to the consumer in the form of the FDA or FDA-like entities. Obviously slavery is not congruent with libertarian ideals. etc.
Assuming they don’t perform any extra filtration or anything, it sounds like fraud. Libertarians aren’t big on fraud.
Did you even read the rest of the thread? Even the rest of the libertarian bashers here acknowledge that it’s possible to hold beliefs that would allow people to be racist without being racist yourself. The example I gave was supporting the right of the KKK to march/make speeches even if you abhorred their message - in your world, are people who support that level of free speech racist too now?
Really? What happens in Libertopia when someone commits a fraud?
I read it, I disagree. There is no principled way of allowing racism into daily life through allowing blatant discrimination in public accommodations. That is sophist bullshit. Statues based in constitutional authority prohibit racial discrimination at all but the most private institutions, where it justly earns the scorn of virtually the entire society around it. To wit private clubs that ban Jews. Legal under current law, but despised and its members shunned. It’s legal to belong to a Klan faction that only gives speeches, but they wear robes for a reason: so people won’t boycott their businesses. Only their privacy rights and association rights allow it. There is no right to advertise on a public thoroughfare with signage and have deliveries on public streets and say no Chinese.
There is no right in this country to do that. It is illegal and the laws enforce it. The oozing sack of shit libertarians think that law is inherently wrong. I think such juvenile game playing is racist. Libtards are racists. Go back and read 50 years of their literature, their magazines and so on. As you go back in time you will find that the racism is less thinly veiled. Libertarianism is about the revulsion felt for having to obey laws that treat people equally. This is central to libertarianism. Libtards don’t go around promoting private toll bridges and ferries and setting them up and making profits off of them: it is all about whom they have to work with and hire and serve and that tax benefits go to icky non-whites. Libtardism is a fantasy where only rich white John Galt types are worth the air they breathe.
I’m sure Bernie Madoff isn’t in favor of fraud beyond his own. Neither is the mafia. Libtards are just to fucking stupid to see that Hobbes nailed their asses to the proverbial church doors several hundred years ago.
Of course they have an answer. They always have an answer. The answers are always that these private entities will magically appear and do all the things that governments do. And the beauty of it is for them is that they will never have to defend a system in place because none of their ideas will ever be implemented. So whichever of the adult factions is in control, the juvenile libertarians get to say “I told you so” no matter what happens.
They get sued, same as in our society. Do you think a libertarian society is lawless, without courts or government? Depending on the nature of the fraud (how harmful it was) I suppose it could qualify as a criminal offense too.
I have no idea what your point is here. In our non-libertarian society, fraud was commited, therefore… I actually can’t even come up with whatever conclusion you’re trying to imply.
I’ve heard plenty of people who think the KKK/whatever hate group should be banned from public speeches for the same reason. Some may even go far as to assume that if you advocate for their free speech, you must be a racist. Those people probably look at you (assuming you advocate allowing racist free speech) the same way you’re looking at me now.
I can understand your point of view, mostly. Or more accurately I can understand the point of view expressed by others in the thread - that it’s possible to honestly advocate this policy without being racist, but it’s naively idealistic and the practical effects will lead to more racism and hence a worse society. I can accept that as a reasonable conclusion. Your conclusion, that everyone who supports the ability of business owners to refuse to serve who they wish, is always the stance of secret racists, is wrong and insulting. Even if it’s true in most cases (I don’t know if that’s true or not), it’s not true in every case.
I want you to be clear about this. You are saying that Sam Stone, John Mace, and I are racist. Is this correct?
I can only say that I know this isn’t true because I hold or sympathize with many libertarian principles and I don’t feel at all this way. Your ideas may even hold weight as a generalization (I would doubt that, but I can’t speak for everyone) but I know it’s certainly not true as an absolute.