KurtAnderson Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 Hello! Last night, my wife was reading about the Takata recall and she asked me a question that stumped me a bit. She said "since the recall was 'issued at the insistence of the Department of Transportation,' do conservatives think it's a bad thing, since that stopped it from being resolved through the free market?" My initial response was that there are many stripes of people who would be self-described "conservative," and even more that would be labeled "conservative" by others, so it's very hard to generalize. I gave her vague answers of what a libertarian might think, an anarchist, a republican, etc. As I was thinking about it on the ride to work, this morning, the issue became more and more complex to me. On the one hand, if one believes in government in the least, they tend to agree that it should stick solely to protecting the citizens and nothing else (armed forces, FDA, police, etc.). However, these organizations are inherently driven by application of force (both directly and indirectly through taxation). And on and on down the paradox rabbit hole. Is the only logical answer anarchy? And, if that's the case, what are the (realistic) alternatives? Thanks for your thoughts! Kurt
shirgall Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 Depends on the threat the DoT used. If the threat was publicity and details of their faults in excruciating detail, that's a good thing. If the threat was fines, jail, and extensive lawsuit party fun time, that's a bad thing.
andkon Posted May 21, 2015 Posted May 21, 2015 If the premise is that a group of people (a corporation) will cut corners and not care, why doesn't that apply to the group of people calling itself the government? At least corporations have an incentive and price system to care and make better decisions.
green banana Posted May 22, 2015 Posted May 22, 2015 It comes down to a simple question. Is it cheaper to fix a problem of your product or to pay compensations in lawsuits? Keep in mind that this line of reasoning would not exist in a free market where personal responsibility is guaranteed. As is now, corporations reap benefits while avoiding risks.
KiriKaeshi Posted May 22, 2015 Posted May 22, 2015 Keep in mind that the DOT is not the only non-free market element at play here. If the car CORPORATIONS were allowed to sort this out free of DOT intervention, the result would still have nothing to do with a 'free' market. The car companies themselves are creatures of the state, with little exposure to any free market principles (remember the auto bailouts?).I would say to Kurt's wife, 'yes, it is a bad thing in principle that the state had to step in and not allow this thing to play itself out in a free market.' Having said that, I would also add: 'For this thing to play itself out in a free market, the car companies would have to be privately held, and publicly exposed (ie, they have to NOT be corporations). Furthermore, insurance, which is heavily regulated by the state, would ideally play a big role in any free market dynamics. So the insurance companies would have to be free of government interference as well.' This complexity is one of the reasons why the project of a stateless society can only be multigenerational, and psychological in nature. 'The state can only end in an eye-roll'. Anything else leads to a boot on the face, and a retrenchment of violance in society.
Existing Alternatives Posted May 22, 2015 Posted May 22, 2015 As I was thinking about it on the ride to work, this morning, the issue became more and more complex to me. On the one hand, if one believes in government in the least, they tend to agree that it should stick solely to protecting the citizens and nothing else (armed forces, FDA, police, etc.). However, these organizations are inherently driven by application of force (both directly and indirectly through taxation). And on and on down the paradox rabbit hole. Is the only logical answer anarchy? And, if that's the case, what are the (realistic) alternatives? Boom! I wish my arrival at anarchy was as simple and logical as that! But yes, anarchy, or, in this case, free market is the answer! If Takata created a product that is harmful to their own customers, it will be in Takata's best interest to recall the product. If not, customers that are having bad experience with their product will quickly switch to whomever their competition happens to be. The regulator's framework of the recall is unlikely to be best aligned for the company - customer relationship, and hence is resisted by Takata. Nobody likes being told what to do.
Recommended Posts