Yes, it is nutty. It's completely nutty as well as completely ignorant. It was tried before in our very nation, and the problems CometsWin mentioned happened all over the place when there weren't regulations by the govt. to stop them. Have you ever studied history?
So your argument is the customer is always right? Really? Corporations are of course bound by the capitalism genie to protect their customers because that's good business. How did that work out for the dead customers of NECC? I guess meningitis is no big deal, the capitalism genie will fix that up in no time.
Have you ever run a business? You should test out your theory. Go to Best Buy or Walmart or your local grocer and tell them you want whatever item for free, and see if any business actually subscribes to the "customer is always right" concept.
no. my argument is that's an expression taught by everyone running a business b/c they care about satisfying a customer b/c that's good business. How did it work out for the NECC not giving the customer what they want? Yes. I don't do business with them again. See how that works? Yes Why? What would that prove?
It was tracked down and traced by the FDA. They are the ones doing the investigation here and getting to the bottom of this. You're own posts are going against your crazy talk, doc. I'm sorry that you've now not only ignored the history of the policies you advocate, but are also ignoring current reality.
Like I said, you live in fantasy land where slogans matter. A lot better than it did for the customers that are dead. Without government involvement those people wouldn't even know that NECC killed them.
it's not a slogan...... and it's relevant because the argument is 'do businesses care what the customer wants?' (can't believe I am having this conversation).
That's cool, but... ... with this statement, it is obvious that you haven't acutally read anything of Mises or Rothbard. Or you read it and clearly misunderstood it. See Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty. See also: Society without a State
glynch, ol' buddy ol' pal, I'm sorry. But the issue of how society ought to be is a big one - so big that it may require a little reading. Fortunately for you, most of the books I linked to have audiobook versions somewhere out there for free. In trying to reduce libertarianism to a bumper sticker slogan so that you may comprehend it, this is the best I can come up with: Anything That's Peaceful. I am well aware that statists of all kinds - whether conservative, liberal, fascist, socialist, or whatever else - foam at the mouth with rage when a libertarian suggests peace supplant violence, but that's just the way it is. I just saw this on 11/6/12. I'm not a conservative, so I don't think this question was intended for me. But my answer is of course to abolish the state. Problem solved. And I'll pose the same but opposite question: do any of you guys that have adopted this statist ideology have exceptions where resources ought not to be managed by a centralized bureaucracy?
You don't get it. ATT wouldn't have to compete with Cricket. ATT would just buy them,T-Mobile, Sprint. Then there would only be ATT and Verizon left and they would just collude with each other fix prices and split up territories. Every time a new carrier wanted to spend a billion bucks to set up a network in some area, ATT would just drop the prices until that carrier ran out of cash.
That's good for you but not a very good check. I mean how is that going to help you if that first time you get deadly food poisoning from a restaurant that skimped on proper food handling to save money. For that matter without regulation how do you have any certainty that the food you are eating or the business you are dealing with isn't cheating you as that may not be obvious. For example I had a project for a home addition where the contractor wasn't going to put in the required steel connections securing the addition to the foundation. The client had no idea that the contractor wasn't doing this since the client wasn't fully versed in construction. The contractor was caught by the inspector but if not for that inspector the client might never have known the contractor did that until a wind storm blew his addition off of the foundation.
But you would be free. And more importantly, the contractor would be free. And even more importantly, the inspector would be free from working for an oppressive system.
The firm's highest goal is to maximise profits. NOT to ensure customer satisfaction. Obviously most of the time, maximise profits tend to be similar to getting customers. However, even Adam Smith pointed out that in the goal of maximising profits, firms can end up in monopolies/oligopolies, trying to extract the maximum amount possible from consumers, and by definition, consumers can't find another provider of the service.
Simple. I don't put anything into my body until I'm sure it won't poison me... Your mistake is assuming that only government (if anyone) is capable of providing this security to me. The private sector already has third party companies devoted to quality control (they exist because customers demand it).
You do realize that the only reason those companies exist today is because of the government regulations requiring food manufacturers to use them, right?
