What's the general consensus in regards to transparency within the market?
Posted by EducationalOil1655@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 29 comments
[removed]
CanOfCorn308@reddit
Mmm no. Most large consumer corps are pretty transparent about the ingredients of their products. Tobacco companies and lottery ticket distributors are only required to advertise the risks of cancer and addictions risks. IMO, it should be up to the consumer to do the research on any products they’re planning on buying. If you don’t know what’s in it and it concerns you, don’t buy it.
Now on the legal front, studies and research done on the contents of products or other factors like lottery odds, should be readily available so the consumer can do their own research.
NamelessLeaf468@reddit
I dont really agree, its unfair to assume all consumers are able to think this critically immediately even if you may be able to, I strongly believe in free choice of what you want to buy but since its impossible to gather perfect info on everything you consume daily simplifying infomation and requiring companies to present it to you clearly is important, even current food lables can be a bit confusing, a can of monster energy contains 490% of my vitamin B12 intake, what does that actually mean? is it bad for me? Idk im not a nutritionist I would love to see stronger regulation that displays information like this in a clear and understandable way without infringing on consumer choice
rodso64@reddit
I just don't see it.
ShadyShaid@reddit
What about supermarket providing a price list online. So I can compare prices with the competitors before driving to the market.
It is good for competition but another regulation would be forced upon companies.
I don’t have an answer for this
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
No need to enforce it. I'll comparison shop online and if a store says "price not available online" I won't shop there. I'm going to assume they don't want to display their price because how high it is and would drive away customers.
ShadyShaid@reddit
In my country there is no supermarket that displays their prices online. I have no choice as a customer. Driving around supermarkets and noting prices are a waste of resources.
That’s why enforce maybe a need to keep competition alive and prices transparent
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
No need.
What crime is being committed by them not advertising online? Who is the victim, and which of their RIGHTS, not preferences, is being violated?
ShadyShaid@reddit
Price transparency and competition is one of the pillar of free market as far as I know. The victim would be the free market
Prices change a lot where I come from. It is even different when it’s the same company but a different store in the town. Comparing prices is suffering. Competition does the same.
I could start my own company and declare prices online, but the problem is that I still need compare prices locally to not hurt my business, which is possible with a lot of effort in one city, but it can’t scale. Never
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
The prices are transparent. Advertised and transparent are not the same thing.
The "Free market" is not an individual it cannot be a victim.
Yes, that's normal. Especially when different locations have different property taxes, rents, utilities, etc.
Again you are whinging about your PREFERENCE not your rights. Government enforcement is violence, you do not get to enforce your preferences with violence.
drnjj@reddit
There are some essentials that should require regulation as part of the bare minimum of what government should provide.
Truth in advertising is important. Knowing cigarettes cause cancer is important. Knowing what's in your food is important.
Knowing your doctor went to their required schooling and passed their required boards exams is important.
Over regulation can turn into protectionism though so it needs a balance. Over regulation can also lead to the regulations becoming somewhat meaningless.
When California passed prop 65, it did quite a bit of good but then it got ridiculous. So many products are labeled as having chemicals that cause cancer. But they don't unless you ingest them.
One of the ones I remember laughing at was polycarbonate glasses. In CA, glasses with those lenses require the warning label. But unless you sit there and eat a bunch of glasses lenses, you're not getting cancer.
I think a lot of people now ignore the warning because it's so ubiquitous and so many products have it that don't need it. Over regulation that didn't get proper consideration.
CodProfessional3818@reddit
I ordered something years ago made from surgical stainless steel. It had no other parts, just the ss. It had a warning that it may cause cancer 🤣
dlham11@reddit
Last I heard, the law wasn’t as ridiculous when it first came out as it is now.
But it was big corporations ~~bribing~~ lobbying their legislators to add a bunch of more things to the list, and being less stringent about what has to be labeled, so people stop taking the labels seriously.
bgdv378@reddit
I mean there's limits. Cigarettes ARE literal poison to your body. You start coughing when you smoke the first time. Your lungs actually instinctionally are trying to keep the cigarette smoke out. And yes, the same, in my mind, applies to hard liquor. Should people be free to poison themselves and not have government intervene? I don't think so.
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
Why not?
Their body, their choice.
dlham11@reddit
It’s your stupid choice to make, but it’s your choice.
I personally will be putting a helmet on because I don’t want to die if I crash.
Some people care about… idk not being heavy headed?
Some people choose to smoke cigs even though they’re known to cause cancer.
Same for drinking.
It’s a choice.
EducationalOil1655@reddit (OP)
My one concern about motorcycle helmets is debris - you're less likely to crash if you have protection on your face/eyes if dust, particles, or small rocks hit you. If you lose control and cause an accident that affects other drivers, that's an issue.
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
Exactly. Your body, your choice. If you want to drink, then drink. If you want to smoke, then smoke. If you want to eat sugar coated lard all day, go for it.
It only becomes an issue to me if there is deceit. If a cigarette company says their cigarettes are healthy, then that's fraud. But if they put right on the package:
And you choose to do it anyway, well then that is your choice.
jimmy_leonard1@reddit
people should be free to poison themselves
Parabellum12@reddit
That’s not a very libertarian position.
bgdv378@reddit
Ok. So, hypothetical thought experiment. Would you be comfortable with a candy company selling arsenic candy as long as the company discloses transparently on the packaging that it's poison made from arsenic?
Parabellum12@reddit
The market would obviously reject a product like that, there would be no need for government regulation.
My problem is giving the government more to regulate. they can’t even regulate things now, with General Mills selling cereal with weed killer being the perfect example. Giving the government more oversight over your life is a slippery slope that never ends well.
bgdv378@reddit
You assume they would reject it. And they probably would. But there's enough stupid/crazy people that would buy them and try them, and die, before the company ever went bankrupt.
Parabellum12@reddit
With personal freedoms comes personal responsibility. It’s not the governments job to babysit its populace, nor should you want it to be.
bgdv378@reddit
If you have children, which I have no idea if you do, you would not apply this extreme no-hands-on policy to the safety of your children. If you won't take this view of almost never using authority protect the stupid and innocent of our society from harming themselves, and applying it to your own children and family, then you probably don't believe what you say you believe. And therefore, why bother saying you believe it? Or you don't have kids, and therefore are missing vital experience that reinforces the idea that authority must be used to protect those who are too foolish to protect themselves.
And yes. I have three kids, all under 10. And yes, they are foolish and I must use my authority to keep them from making stupid decisions and harming themselves. And yes again, there are many adults who have the maturity and wisdom of a toddler.
boom_pow_surprise@reddit
There is a massive difference in kind between your authority as a parent and the authority of .gov
bgdv378@reddit
EducationalOil1655@reddit (OP)
Yes.
John_Johnson_The_4th@reddit
Laws for transparency are important in much the same way laws against fraud are important. This isn't an anti-libertarian issue, but if you're an anarchist I can see why you wouldn't like this.
AutoModerator@reddit
REMOVED: due to a large amount of brigading, we are temporarily restricting posts from drive-by users. If you are unfamiliar with our beliefs or ideology, take some time to lurk, or do some research. Do not message the mod team, this will be reviewed when we have time. Messaging the mod team asking us to approve this will result in an automatic denial and potential ban as we will assume you are a clanker sending automated messages.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.