I understand (for the most part) how free markets can regulate food industries as opposed to government agencies such as the FDA and the Dept of Health. You have consumer watchdogs, private certification industry, and competition all regulating food safety in a free market.
However, what regulatory factor comes into play in a scenario where there is MINOR "poisoning" occurring. That is to say, what if food companies put SOME nasty ingredients in their food, cheapening the quality but increasing profits because of the lower costs of manufacturing said food. The key here is SOME, meaning not enough to get people sick or show signs of low quality, but still a misrepresentation of what is being sold. If a company did this and was not certified, and there was no sign of illness though the food's ingredients were still being misrepresented, what free markets come into play to regulate this?
I hope im making some sense here. Lol.
It seems the premptive strike of government agencies that regulate the food industry would take care of this problem, as they do routine inspections. However, free market regulation seems more reactive if a business were not to have a private certification.
I need to make something clear: in case some of you haven't noticed, many of my posts are in this devil's advocate style, where i pose scenarios which may challenge libertarian beliefs. I want to assure anybody who may have suspicions that im not a troll finding clever ways to challenge the libertarian philosophy. These are arguments i come across from those opposed to a libertarian society, and i simply relay these oppositions to you guys so i may gain a stronger understanding of the philosophy, as well as provide myself with ammunition to counter te claims of big-government statists.
So, responses? Ideas? And sorry for any typos, im posting this from my phone.
However, what regulatory factor comes into play in a scenario where there is MINOR "poisoning" occurring. That is to say, what if food companies put SOME nasty ingredients in their food, cheapening the quality but increasing profits because of the lower costs of manufacturing said food. The key here is SOME, meaning not enough to get people sick or show signs of low quality, but still a misrepresentation of what is being sold. If a company did this and was not certified, and there was no sign of illness though the food's ingredients were still being misrepresented, what free markets come into play to regulate this?
I hope im making some sense here. Lol.
It seems the premptive strike of government agencies that regulate the food industry would take care of this problem, as they do routine inspections. However, free market regulation seems more reactive if a business were not to have a private certification.
I need to make something clear: in case some of you haven't noticed, many of my posts are in this devil's advocate style, where i pose scenarios which may challenge libertarian beliefs. I want to assure anybody who may have suspicions that im not a troll finding clever ways to challenge the libertarian philosophy. These are arguments i come across from those opposed to a libertarian society, and i simply relay these oppositions to you guys so i may gain a stronger understanding of the philosophy, as well as provide myself with ammunition to counter te claims of big-government statists.
So, responses? Ideas? And sorry for any typos, im posting this from my phone.