Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Libertarianism and the Police Message-ID: <1594@dciem.UUCP> Date: Sun, 23-Jun-85 14:43:44 EDT Article-I.D.: dciem.1594 Posted: Sun Jun 23 14:43:44 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 23-Jun-85 17:42:17 EDT References: <55@umcp-cs.UUCP> Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada Lines: 60 Summary: >Insurance premiums represent a cut in profits. Do you think the drug >companies will have no insurance? Lack of public confidence in the >purity of your product represents a lack of sales, and thus a loss in >profits -- do you think they'll take no measures to convince the public? >If XYZ aspirin company is unable to convince distributor's associations, >consumer reports, and others that their product is on the level, they'll >have trouble selling it. If, at the same time, ABC aspirin comes out >with endorsements from the AMA, the European equivalents of the FDA, >Consumer's Union (although they do not allow re-publication of their >materials), and a few widely-respected forensic labs, they'll sell more >than XYZ, which (so far as anyone knows) is selling snake-oil. Ever wonder why "selling snake-oil" is a popular metaphor for dishonest salesmanship? Have a look at advertisements from newspapers and magazines from the days before government regulations concerning truth in advertising, and about drug effectiveness and safety. Did the snake-oil salesmen go broke? How many fortunes were made from "Little Pink Liver Pills" and the like? People tend to believe that what someone tells them is the truth, if they are told often enough. > ... >If you KNEW that no government stood between you and rapacious >abusers, wouldn't YOU make a point of checking your purchases, or >shopping at stores (or chains) that you trusted? One of the reasons >that Sears is a popular place to shop is that you can be sure that >THEIR quality-assurance people looked over the tools they sell. Before >people got the curious idea that the government should concern itself >with such things, it was a major function of such chains to assure >quality. Or to assure that the public thought they provided lower prices than the competition for equivalent quality. It was always public belief rather than truth that mattered (except for a few institutions, such as Rolls-Royce, but most people didn't deal with them). Occasionally, I refer to Consumers Reports in conversing about some item. It's amazimg how often I get the response "you don't really believe what they say, do you?" Not because the person thinks Consumers Reports is biased or paid-off, but because the results disagree with some prior belief and therefore the testing methods must be inadequate. A most recent case in point: I mentioned to a friend that I bought Toyota because CR found their reliability to be the best of all makes of car except possibly Mercedes. He disbelieved it, because he had had three consecutive US-built cars that had served him reliably. So, CR's methods of getting data had to be wrong. You get enough scantily clad girls dancing around and singing "At Ford, quality is job one", and people begin to believe it. Better to have some laws that are enforced, to make sure quality IS job one before they advertise it. Private quality-testing groups are great, for those with the sense to take advantage of them, and the time to do so. Unfortunately, we don't all have the time to research each purchase, even if we might have the sense to want to. So we like to be able to rely on the notion that false advertising and dangerous goods are rare, and eliminated whenever they are found (I guess that's still a pipe dream, but things are better than they used to be). -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt