Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (732)	6/20/2008 2:00:45 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 3816

"...The idea of strict liability is a popular one in libertarian circles--many more hard core libertarians support the stripping of limited liability from corporations. I am not a fan of this latter idea. Lawsuits are expensive and inefficient; medical malpractice, probably the best model we have for this idea, does a pretty terrible job of allocating awards to people who have been harmed by doctor malfeasance--there's only a very loose relationship between who is harmed and who sues, and who is harmed and who wins. Juries in obstetrics cases are particularly notorious for giving awards to parents of congenitally deformed babies on thin evidence, but the problem is not limited to OB/GYN. On the other side, disliking your doctor is probably a better predictor of whether you will sue than actual malfeasance. Moreover, the harm is not necessarily proportional to the size of the company. A small farm with a bad salmonella problem could make a lot of people sick, but have few assets to take. Again, there is a flip side to this--lawyers often go after the people with the biggest pockets, rather than the people who have caused the most harm. The current asbestos debacle is a good example of this. In my opinion, the government has a valuable role in providing transparency. The USDA meat grading system is pretty valuable, for example. I think the food and drug industries tend to be badly regulated, and overregulated, but I do not think we would be better served without an FDA. Rather, I think we would be better served by focusing on a certification model rather than an "everything not compulsory is forbidden" model. I don't think the government has any business telling people they can't drink unpasteurized milk, but I think it can play a valuable role in deciding what constitutes pasteurization, and forcing companies to honestly tell their customers whether or not they meet those standards. Now, these functions are often ably served by private organizations--FASB, which sets accounting standards, is both private and the best accounting body in the world (IMHO). Similarly, the ASPCA and the Humane Society are doing great work with their Certified Humane program, which sets farming standards and inspects farms that want the coveted certification to ensure that they meet these standards..." meganmcardle.theatlantic.com Why not privatize the FDA and open its functions to competition? Let the farmers submit to an independant third party (of their choice) for inspection. Health lawsuits could then be brought against inspection companies, not farmers, though farmers would still be free to sell directly to the consumer and risk a direct lawsuit themselves. I can imagine going to the supermarket and looking at three different tomatoes- one shipped directly from a grower to me, and two with stickers of inspection from professional, private health organizations. Of the two with stickers, one might be a company that has an establshed reputation of protecting consumers from harm, and the other might be some fly-by-night inspection company I never heard of. Now- which tomato would I choose? I'd choose the one inspected by a company with a good reputation. Now- it is possible I might choose one of the other two if they are priced less- then it becomes a question of acceptable risk. Or- I may trust an individual grower more than other growers. It would be in the financial self-interest of the grower to insure the quality of his own product and develop a good reputation for quality independent of any inspection agency. He could in such case undersell his competitors by selling directly to the consumer (sticker-less and so at a lower price) on the basis of his reputation. Grocery stores could also choose to only purchase produce inspected by the most reputable inspecting companies. They could advertise this fact and use it as a way to gain more customers. The choice is not between No Ispection and Government Inspection- the choice is between Private and State-controlled industry. There is absolutely no point in giving these functions to the government. We need competition in the food inspection business- which is yet another proper, helpful American industry that has been Nationalized by our meddling statist rulers. Posted by Richard G. \| June 20, 2008 9:16 AM meganmcardle.theatlantic.com