Comment by GatorD42 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by GatorD42 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Some libertarians (such as myself) generally believe corporations already have strong incentives to make non-defective products. Some products that compromise safety for cost provide consumers low cost options they would otherwise not have. Efforts to regulate such products to make them safer can cause more harm than good (by making such products more expensive and therefore unavailable so consumers will use something older or less safe).

Currently it costs zero dollars to "hire" a lawyer in a class action against a company for a defective product. If a company has made a defective product there will probably be a class action and you will receive a small settlement. If you have been seriously injured eg by asbestos it also costs zero dollars to hire a lawyer, they work on contingency. I am totally in favor of reforming licensing laws, but if you have been seriously injured and you have a strong legal case, money is not a barrier to getting a lawyer.

Generally I think there is too much regulation and too much litigation, I don't think private litigation is a solution for regulation, I think market incentives are the solution. When there are obviously unsafe products on the market is worth looking deeper to see if consumers are willingly sacrificing safety for cost.

I don't think history beat bears that out.

I was just listening to an interview with Deborah Blum on her new book, The Poison Squad, concerning the history of food safety regulations. It seems like most corporations have strong incentives to make defective products; bad products drive out good.

As for litigation, without regulations, you could only sue on the grounds that the corporation knowingly violated some "reasonable" standard of behavior.

One example that comes to mind is vinyl chloride in hairspray:

"The companies did not, however, immediately move to take the chemical out of hairspray. Their major fear seemed to be the possibility of lawsuits. In a January 1973 meeting, industry lawyers warned of the enormous potential legal liability:

""If vinyl chloride proves hazardous to health, a producing company's liability to its employees is limited by various Workmen’s Compensation laws. A company selling vinyl chloride as an aerosol propellant, however, has essentially unlimited liability to the entire U.S. population.""

https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/the-crusa...

https://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/evidence/secrecy_pop02.html

Setting aside the barriers to getting a lawyer when you have no money which I think you dismiss too readily, I am more interested in how you would propose to determine whether consumers are willingly sacrificing safety for cost?

People make cost-safety trade offs all the time, the probabilities are so low that they may not explicitly think of them as such.

Have you ever driven a long distance instead of flying? If so you sacrificed safety for price / convenience - over the same distance flying is much safer. Are you driven by a professional chauffeur in an armored S-Class? If not you are sacrificing safety for cost.

You could imagine pushing pro-regulation arguments to absurd circumstances, like making it illegal to drive more than 125 miles (requiring people fly instead) or banning all cars aside from the armored S-Class etc. The side effects of such rules would obviously be very bad, but smaller regulations could have smaller, still deleterious consequences. See the case of unsafe cars in India: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/05/sa...

Yes but I am really interested in my actual question, which is how we can tell whether any given behavior that exhibits desire for lower price is done willingly, knowing that there is a safety tradeoff.

I am absolutely not saying it doesn't happen. I am asking how can we tell?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com