I wonder what it means for the decision-makers and leaders of these companies who lobby for law to do their own job. Who are they and what are their prerogatives? How do they run their business if they rather not be responsible for their own product?
@iwustudent101 In the case of faulty products, you are correct. Many law offices will sue without a retainer. However, in many civil lawsuits like harassment issues, that is not always the case. As for the immediacy, I'm referring to situations where it may take years for the product to cause damage such as cigarette smoking or other types of toxins. Sometimes it takes years to have the full impact.
I think the biggest flaw with this guy's reasoning is that many products do not have an IMMEDIATE bad result of poisoning. The average consumer will not sue a company unless they understand that they are actually being poisoned. Another flaw with this line of reasoning is that it only protects the rights of those who can afford legal representation. You have to have money to sue a company.
I understand the first flaw you pointed out and I agree. The second flaw is the one I found interesting. Don't many law firms offer ways to get around paying for the resources used in the process of suing? Such as billing you only if you win the case and not charging anything if you lose.
@StayingSain Yes you are correct and I pointed that out. In some situations they do such as accidents. I was pointing out that sometimes they do not though. There have been many situations in the past where you had to pay for legal fees out of pocket. It depends on the case.
you have to consistently make a profit in order to pay off your expenses both fixed and variable. if you take the time and spend the money to open up shop and make of POS product, you'll lose business and go bankrupt.
great product being subjective though - then again, perception is reality. If you as a consumer believe that you have received value for money, for all intents and purposes, you have received value for money - even if an objective outsider could prove to the contrary.
Personally I'm glad that I don't need to worry that the bank is going to steal my money, worry that the toys and drug's being prescribed are safe, and worry that my next elevator ride will be my last. If this fella really believes that he will be a more free and responsible if he had these concerns, then I suggest that he move to a third world nation where he can enjoy these worries.
Question, why haven't these concerns produced more robust and healthy societies in the third world?
Point is: Apparently you DO have to worry about poisonous toys, because they DO exist and have caused harm, even in the U.S. So it seems the regulations you're so fond of don't prevent anything. The only thing they do is defer responsibility from the people who should have upheld quality assurance but didn't because it wasn't mandated.
If we follow Brook's argument, why do you assume that someone would sell poison, knowing he would be held responsible for it? What possible reason could he have?
Because they think they can get away with it. They will argue that it is the parents' responsibility to keep lead painted toys out of childrens' mouths. They will argue that rat hair in hot-dogs is unavoidable. Or that in their opinion tobacco is not addictive and has never been proven to cause cancer. These are all real examples.
You seem to assume that people are irresponsible because they are lazy. They are irresponsible because it serves an interest of theirs and think they won't be caught.
Yes, they are real examples. Real examples of what happens in the current system where everything is regulated. You are making a point against freeing up an economy by citing examples of failure in a regulated economy. If anything, you're making my point for me.
I assume that people are irresponsible because there is currently no reason to be responsible. If a toy turns out to be toxic, they can just say "But it passed all the necessary regulations, so you can't blame us".
What are you talking about? There was just recently a case of toxic toys from china and a massive recall. No children were hurt but if any had been there would have been massive repercussions. The company would have been sued and people could have gone to jail.
As for my examples, the hot-dog one is over 100 years old, before the FDA and any serious regulation of the economy. Read "The Jungle" and see how responsible the meat industry was before regulation.
I find it funny you talk about the FDA and yet countries such as New Zealand and Australia where inspection is left up to the company to conduct have lower rates of food poisoning at first sale than the United States. You really think that the little FDA stamp means anything? bloody hell you're ignorant! just look at the stuff that was approved then suddenly taken off the market because it was rushed through by political interference.
I'm Ignorant? Here's a bit of free advice, before you type a comment, do some fact checking. You are on the internet already so there's no excuse. Google "Food Standards Australia". Once there take note of words such as " government agency" and "enforcement".
I lived in a country that really does have self policing. If you only saw the meat they had... their best trick was to sell frozen rotten meat, because when frozen you can't tell how old it is.
My concern is: is my government going to spend as much money on a lawsuit to protect my rights as the corporation will to defend its fraudulent product?
Awesome stuff Dr. Brook. ARI, please post as many videos like this as you can. You probably are already doing this, but really, right now this world needs the influence of Objectivism more than ever. Keep up the great work.
The only thing he forgets to mention are private, 3rd party organizations that could oversee these kinds of things, without using force and bureaucracy. Like the BBB, or Consumer Report magazine.
Excellent. Some of the more rational-leaning people I know don't see how a free market could solve this issue. I often hear as an arguement something like:
"a contractor would build houses that fall apart afterwards if left unregulated" etc etc. That's just not true. This video explains it well.
I wonder what it means for the decision-makers and leaders of these companies who lobby for law to do their own job. Who are they and what are their prerogatives? How do they run their business if they rather not be responsible for their own product?
LifeinaRaindrop 1 year ago
@iwustudent101 In the case of faulty products, you are correct. Many law offices will sue without a retainer. However, in many civil lawsuits like harassment issues, that is not always the case. As for the immediacy, I'm referring to situations where it may take years for the product to cause damage such as cigarette smoking or other types of toxins. Sometimes it takes years to have the full impact.
MrsSarb 1 year ago
I think the biggest flaw with this guy's reasoning is that many products do not have an IMMEDIATE bad result of poisoning. The average consumer will not sue a company unless they understand that they are actually being poisoned. Another flaw with this line of reasoning is that it only protects the rights of those who can afford legal representation. You have to have money to sue a company.
MrsSarb 2 years ago
@MrsSarb
I understand the first flaw you pointed out and I agree. The second flaw is the one I found interesting. Don't many law firms offer ways to get around paying for the resources used in the process of suing? Such as billing you only if you win the case and not charging anything if you lose.
StayingSain 1 year ago
@StayingSain Yes you are correct and I pointed that out. In some situations they do such as accidents. I was pointing out that sometimes they do not though. There have been many situations in the past where you had to pay for legal fees out of pocket. It depends on the case.
MrsSarb 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
'have to make great product to make a profit'? wow, how fukn retarded is this guy?
hhiippiittyy 2 years ago
you have to consistently make a profit in order to pay off your expenses both fixed and variable. if you take the time and spend the money to open up shop and make of POS product, you'll lose business and go bankrupt.
DominationCorp 2 years ago 3
great product being subjective though - then again, perception is reality. If you as a consumer believe that you have received value for money, for all intents and purposes, you have received value for money - even if an objective outsider could prove to the contrary.
kawaiigardiner 2 years ago
Personally I'm glad that I don't need to worry that the bank is going to steal my money, worry that the toys and drug's being prescribed are safe, and worry that my next elevator ride will be my last. If this fella really believes that he will be a more free and responsible if he had these concerns, then I suggest that he move to a third world nation where he can enjoy these worries.
Question, why haven't these concerns produced more robust and healthy societies in the third world?
ColBrokov 2 years ago
Point is: Apparently you DO have to worry about poisonous toys, because they DO exist and have caused harm, even in the U.S. So it seems the regulations you're so fond of don't prevent anything. The only thing they do is defer responsibility from the people who should have upheld quality assurance but didn't because it wasn't mandated.
If we follow Brook's argument, why do you assume that someone would sell poison, knowing he would be held responsible for it? What possible reason could he have?
KeyserX 2 years ago 2
Because they think they can get away with it. They will argue that it is the parents' responsibility to keep lead painted toys out of childrens' mouths. They will argue that rat hair in hot-dogs is unavoidable. Or that in their opinion tobacco is not addictive and has never been proven to cause cancer. These are all real examples.
You seem to assume that people are irresponsible because they are lazy. They are irresponsible because it serves an interest of theirs and think they won't be caught.
ColBrokov 2 years ago
Yes, they are real examples. Real examples of what happens in the current system where everything is regulated. You are making a point against freeing up an economy by citing examples of failure in a regulated economy. If anything, you're making my point for me.
I assume that people are irresponsible because there is currently no reason to be responsible. If a toy turns out to be toxic, they can just say "But it passed all the necessary regulations, so you can't blame us".
KeyserX 2 years ago 3
What are you talking about? There was just recently a case of toxic toys from china and a massive recall. No children were hurt but if any had been there would have been massive repercussions. The company would have been sued and people could have gone to jail.
As for my examples, the hot-dog one is over 100 years old, before the FDA and any serious regulation of the economy. Read "The Jungle" and see how responsible the meat industry was before regulation.
ColBrokov 2 years ago
I find it funny you talk about the FDA and yet countries such as New Zealand and Australia where inspection is left up to the company to conduct have lower rates of food poisoning at first sale than the United States. You really think that the little FDA stamp means anything? bloody hell you're ignorant! just look at the stuff that was approved then suddenly taken off the market because it was rushed through by political interference.
kawaiigardiner 2 years ago
I'm Ignorant? Here's a bit of free advice, before you type a comment, do some fact checking. You are on the internet already so there's no excuse. Google "Food Standards Australia". Once there take note of words such as " government agency" and "enforcement".
I lived in a country that really does have self policing. If you only saw the meat they had... their best trick was to sell frozen rotten meat, because when frozen you can't tell how old it is.
ColBrokov 2 years ago
My concern is: is my government going to spend as much money on a lawsuit to protect my rights as the corporation will to defend its fraudulent product?
MishuTaste 2 years ago
i agree with this video
the FDA is operated by a bunch of clowns
anyone who blindly supports government agency is a clown
theresnofreelunch 2 years ago 3
Personal Responsibility. I suppose that is the new phrase as opposed to rugged individualism. Is that not what freedom is all about?
Tax1967 3 years ago
This is great stuff.
erikvdln 3 years ago 2
Awesome stuff Dr. Brook. ARI, please post as many videos like this as you can. You probably are already doing this, but really, right now this world needs the influence of Objectivism more than ever. Keep up the great work.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago 5
"right now this world needs the influence of Objectivism more than ever"
Yeah, and we also just really like free stuff.
WarVideo 3 years ago
i find a great example of what Mr. Brook is saying was the recent bridge collapse.
akinobjectivist 3 years ago
The only thing he forgets to mention are private, 3rd party organizations that could oversee these kinds of things, without using force and bureaucracy. Like the BBB, or Consumer Report magazine.
Egoist1957 3 years ago 4
A correction of false premises sounds like... music.
8daystillmonday 3 years ago 5
Excellent.
ArrogantEgoist 3 years ago 5
You tell 'em, Yaron!
Egoist1957 3 years ago 6
Interesting.
z2b 3 years ago 4
What a great explanation of how a truly free market would regulate itself.
jvittetoe 3 years ago 13
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wegulation?
DystopianFuture2day 3 years ago
Oh how simple a rational government would be.
ShoelessLlama 3 years ago 8
great answer
shovelcharge 3 years ago 5
Good explanation.
kennitala 3 years ago 4
Excellent. Some of the more rational-leaning people I know don't see how a free market could solve this issue. I often hear as an arguement something like:
"a contractor would build houses that fall apart afterwards if left unregulated" etc etc. That's just not true. This video explains it well.
NotThat3 3 years ago 12