Re: Digest Number 3425

[Guest guest]

S., telling your friend about AIH resources was very thoughtful. I'm sorry she has both PBC and AIH.

When she goes to , I think she will find the sign-up process fairly easy.

We look forward to hearing from Doris.

Harper

[Guest guest]

Hi Carole,

Good for you that you like working at Target! Yes, that girl is naïve

but she is young and most likely hasn't had anything happen to her yet

on the magnitude that we have. Hopefully her blood tests will come back

fine!

How are the customers? I have a friend who worked at Target and told me

lots of stories about them.

Love,

[ ] Digest Number 3425

[Guest guest]

On: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 15:52:56 -0500 " mark robert " wrote

> I don't think this thread ever consisted of defending incompetent

> businesses. I think it started out comparing two possible

> solutions: more gov legislation and less civil liability, or less

> gov regulation and more civil liability. I believe that ,

> , etc, and I (and Jeffery Quick?) are suggesting that gov

> legislation is an inferior method of harm reduction, and that

> civil-litigation is a superior method. In other words, more

> government is not the best solution to the problems you list

> above. No one disagrees that problems like that need solutions;

> we were discussing which solution is best.

How is it that you intend to solve the problems then? Are you going to

demand access as a consumer into the warehouses and factories that produce

and store your food? I don't think you will be obliged by the business. Are

you prepared to test the food yourself? You can't engage in civil litigation

if you are not given police power to investigate the possible wrongdoing.

These businesses aren't incompetent, they are doing what they wish to

maximize their profits because they think they can get away with it.

>

>

> Nor does the oversights and negligence of some businesses indict

> the free-enterprise (or corporate?) system. Too often the

> services businesses provide and the resources they produce are

> overlooked by anti-capitalists when citing problems.

Well, the corrupt corporate system is another story. I suggest watching the

documentary " The Corporation " for a nice presentation. If it's no longer in

your theatre it should be out on DVD in April. Stripping the corporation of

its " rights " is a good start.

> That

> particular business was not being smart because they risked

> customer dissatisfaction at best and customer harm at worst.

> Business is compassionate only in the sense of it being a wise

> policy to your customers - to make more money. Therein is

> capitalism's built-in safeguard against rampant incompetence; the

> customer's desire is the bottom line and the last word.

If I can make money selling you food contaminated with substances you can't

see, so what? Low levels of pesticides, prohibited food colors,

additives...who cares? When you finally get cancer you won't be able to

prove it was me. Even if the food is contaminated with Listeria or

Salmonella you won't be able to trace it to me unless you get a government

agency involved. How are you going to do the epidemiology involved? Do you

think your doctor will do that for you? Its way cheaper to produce food

without all those expensive sanitation safeguards. There is no incentive not

to do so if it will maximize my profit.

>

> Did you attempt to do something about it when you saw the

> unhealthy conditions you described above? Were there people

> getting hurt?

I work for a regulatory agency, so you can bet your butt I did something

about it. As a private citizen do you suppose I could have gained entry into

a private warehouse or factory?.

As for people getting hurt, how much rodent urine do you like in your food?

Someday I'll tell some stories about importers hiding contaminated product

in fake packaging and taking it from port to port until they can get it into

the country. Just business as usual.