RE: Re: POLITICS Private Regulation (was Adjudicating Pollution Disputes )

[Guest guest]

" The role of private companies would be as an optional

product-testing service (testing only products that have already

been purchased). I envision these types of companies becoming

quite successful. "

_____

Mark,

Why only purchased products? Certification agencies can require inspection

of the production premises itself in exchange for certification. Limiting

inspection to post-purchase strikes me as an unnecessary restriction as well as

a very ineffective means of quality control.

Take several examples. When concrete is made, it has to be tested in

various ways, including saving a sample of the batch and breaking it when it

cures

to see what pressure it takes to break it. If you order a step for your new

house and you want to be sure it's safe, what would the post-purchase

inspector do, break the step? If you want to be sure the dating on your eggs

is

accurate, how would a post-purchase inspector discover whether the date on the

carton reflected the age of the eggs?

Chris

[Guest guest]

>It is correct that testing only purchased products might seem to

>be too late to insure quality and safety, but that’s a

>short-sighted perspective. In the long-term, the solution would

>be much more effective (and fair) than what we have right now.

>Companies that make mistakes (especially ones that create extra

>expenses [harm] to consumers) would be severely punished (by

>civil-suit judgments) and scare the rest into paying much closer

>attention to (spending more money on) quality control. As far as

>all the sciences/technologies involved in product testing, I’m no

>expert, but I doubt that all products would have to be completely

>destroyed before being put into use. Besides, pre-testing would

>only be an option, as a lot of it (most?) would only be after

>apparent product failure. Regarding eggs, one could be taken from

>the dozen, set aside for a period of time at a certain

>temperature, and certain technologies would be applied to monitor

>its decomposition rate; back-figuring would give you’re your

>birth-date (freshness at purchase date) of the egg. Of course a

>much simpler method of egg analysis would consist of the common

>field test: sight and smell.

_____

[Chris's reply]

Dear Mark,

We agree on the legal principles.

However, we disagree on the relative importance that pre-purchase inspection

and certification would have.

While certainly the destruction of products wouldn't be necessary in every

case, my point was simply that it is for certain things. Concrete is an

example, because the pressure at which it breaks varies with each batch and

every

single batch must be tested. The destruction of the concrete absolutely is

necessary for this test, although we can generalize from a small portion of a

given batch to the rest of that batch (but not to other batches.) This

simply requires an on-site pre-purchase inspection on a daily basis. We agree,

though, that government is not necessary for this. Any concrete manufacturer

naturally would pay for this to be done, and currently do, because not only is

safety of the product once it has reached the buyer important to maintain

customers, but the concrete must also be strong enough to make it out of the

production facility without breaking and the waste of money if such were common

would outweight the money paid to the inspector.

Let's make this relevant to food:

Raw milk could be and is and should be inspected after production for

bacteria content, etc, but if I want top-quality grass-fed raw milk grown on

good

soil, I want to know much more than that, including the cleanliness of the

facilities, assurance that the product is raw, soil fertility measures, quality

of pasture, etc. While some of these can be known to some degree by visiting

the farm, I'd have much more confidence as a consumer in milk that was

certified by a third party who did more detailed inspection on a daily basis,

and

the producer could more than recoup the cost of inspections by charging a

higher premium for a superior quality milk. The same goes for any other food

in

regards to pasture and soil quality, total feed, etc. While nutrient tests

could be done post-purchase, it is ridiculously inconvenient for consumers to

have to do this, inefficient, and also ineffective, because we know very

little about the totality of beneficial (or harmful) compounds in foods and

simply can't test for all of them, knowing of only a small fraction of them.

Chris

[Guest guest]

________________________________________

From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 8:05 AM

Subject: Re: Re: POLITICS Private Regulation (was

Adjudicating Pollution Disputes )

•

" The role of private companies would be as an optional

product-testing  service (testing only products that have already

been purchased). I envision  these types of companies becoming

quite successful. "

_____

Mark,

Why only purchased products?  Certification agencies can require 

inspection

of the production premises itself in exchange for 

certification.  Limiting

inspection to post-purchase strikes me as an  unnecessary

restriction as well as

a very ineffective means of quality  control.

Take several examples.  When concrete is made, it has to be

tested in 

various ways, including saving a sample of the batch and breaking

it when it  cures

to see what pressure it takes to break it.  If you order a step

for  your new

house and you want to be sure it's safe, what would the

post-purchase 

inspector do, break the step?  If you want to be sure the dating

on your  eggs is

accurate, how would a post-purchase inspector discover whether

the date  on the

carton reflected the age of the eggs?

Chris

----------------------

As long as the certification is not by a gov agency-of-force,

pre-certification by a private company as an extra claim of

quality to put on the product label would be not be a

non-consensual invasion of private property and would be

constitutionally fine.

It is correct that testing only purchased products might seem to

be too late to insure quality and safety, but that’s a

short-sighted perspective. In the long-term, the solution would

be much more effective (and fair) than what we have right now.

Companies that make mistakes (especially ones that create extra

expenses [harm] to consumers) would be severely punished (by

civil-suit judgments) and scare the rest into paying much closer

attention to (spending more money on) quality control. As far as

all the sciences/technologies involved in product testing, I’m no

expert, but I doubt that all products would have to be completely

destroyed before being put into use. Besides, pre-testing would

only be an option, as a lot of it (most?) would only be after

apparent product failure. Regarding eggs, one could be taken from

the dozen, set aside for a period of time at a certain

temperature, and certain technologies would be applied to monitor

its decomposition rate; back-figuring would give you’re your

birth-date (freshness at purchase date) of the egg. Of course a

much simpler method of egg analysis would consist of the common

field test: sight and smell.

-Mark

[Guest guest]

_____

From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

Dear Mark,

We agree on the legal principles.

However, we disagree on the relative importance that pre-purchase

inspection

and certification would have.

While certainly the destruction of products wouldn't be necessary

in every

case, my point was simply that it is for certain things.

Concrete is an

example, because the pressure at which it breaks varies with each

batch and every

single batch must be tested. The destruction of the concrete

absolutely is

necessary for this test, although we can generalize from a small

portion of a

given batch to the rest of that batch (but not to other

batches.) This

simply requires an on-site pre-purchase inspection on a daily

basis. We agree,

though, that government is not necessary for this. Any concrete

manufacturer

naturally would pay for this to be done, and currently do,

because not only is

safety of the product once it has reached the buyer important to

maintain

customers, but the concrete must also be strong enough to make

it out of the

production facility without breaking and the waste of money if

such were common

would outweight the money paid to the inspector.

Let's make this relevant to food:

Raw milk could be and is and should be inspected after production

for

bacteria content, etc, but if I want top-quality grass-fed raw

milk grown on good

soil, I want to know much more than that, including the

cleanliness of the

facilities, assurance that the product is raw, soil fertility

measures, quality

of pasture, etc. While some of these can be known to some degree

by visiting

the farm, I'd have much more confidence as a consumer in milk

that was

certified by a third party who did more detailed inspection on a

daily basis, and

the producer could more than recoup the cost of inspections by

charging a

higher premium for a superior quality milk. The same goes for

any other food in

regards to pasture and soil quality, total feed, etc. While

nutrient tests

could be done post-purchase, it is ridiculously inconvenient for

consumers to

have to do this, inefficient, and also ineffective, because we

know very

little about the totality of beneficial (or harmful) compounds in

foods and

simply can't test for all of them, knowing of only a small

fraction of them.

Chris

------------------------

So if you feel something is important enough, it should over-rule

legal principle (constitutionality)? I don't.

Nor do I feel that forcing inspections on companies, and then of

all things making them pay for it, is any different/better than

the bad job the gov is doing right now. Giving forced-inspection

authority to private business and forcing the inspected to pay up

front is certainly not my idea of less government, in regard to

any Libertarian or Constitutional principles that I'm aware of.

Your plan simply gives business the same abusive authority as

gov, and still violates private property rights. It also assumes

guilt and makes the accused pay to prove his innocence, BEFORE he

has harmed anyone and AFTER his property has been invaded without

his consent.

Regarding your feeling that inspections are needed with food

processors/manufacturers: Your plan would hold them accountable

for mistakes they have not yet made. Forced inspections not only

violate constitutional property rights, they require legislated

criminal codes for punishment, and agencies to deliver exact

sentences and organize it all, etc - which of course encourages

the same old corruption and pay-offs. You might WANT your local

food producer to have this and do that and be all he can be, but

you have no right to force your wants on him if he has not hurt

you.

-Mark

[Guest guest]

[Chris]

>>We agree on the legal principles.

[Mark]

>So if you feel something is important enough, it should over-rule

>legal principle (constitutionality)? I don't.

____

[Chris's reply]

I fail to see how you got that out of what I said. I stated in my first

sentence that we agreed on the legal principles involved. I then went on to

state that I see a large role for voluntary private certification of

pre-purchase conditions, and that in some industries constant pre-purchase

on-production-site inspection is necessary and the company itself would be

motivated by

profit motive to pay for this inspection itself. In the former case, I see the

pressure of consumers opting for products that are certified as to their

conditions over those that are not. (For example, certified organic food,

certified humanely raised food, etc.)

Your other two paragraphs similarly misunderstood what I said, so I hope

this clarification is sufficient.

Chris

[Guest guest]

_____

From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 6:57 PM

Subject: Re: Re: POLITICS Private Regulation (was

Adjudicating Pollution Disputes )

[Chris]

>>We agree on the legal principles.

[Mark]

>So if you feel something is important enough, it should

over-rule

>legal principle (constitutionality)? I don't.

____

[Chris's reply]

I fail to see how you got that out of what I said. I stated in

my first

sentence that we agreed on the legal principles involved. I then

went on to

state that I see a large role for voluntary private certification

of

pre-purchase conditions, and that in some industries constant

pre-purchase

on-production-site inspection is necessary and the company itself

would be motivated by

profit motive to pay for this inspection itself. In the former

case, I see the

pressure of consumers opting for products that are certified as

to their

conditions over those that are not. (For example, certified

organic food,

certified humanely raised food, etc.)

Your other two paragraphs similarly misunderstood what I said, so

I hope

this clarification is sufficient.

Chris

--------------------

It looks like I again misunderstood your original, and yes your

clarification would seem to be not only sufficient but also quite

Libertarian/Constitutional. Extra guarantees/certifications to

put on labels/ads are fine.

-Mark