For one thing, alcohol consumption is not necessarily harmful. In fact, moderate consumption can be beneficial.
But even more important, alcohol consumption is highly regulated. Your example supports my position
Well, I'm not so sure that it is. Alcohol production is highly regulated, certainly. Sales and distribution of alcohol is highly regulated as well. But once the alcohol leaves the store, the consumption of alcohol is one of the greatest blights of our society and accounts for the some of the highest counts of avoidable death. While it may have been reduced significantly over the past few decades, it is still a huge killer overall.
In addition, I would point out that we were not talking about necessarily banning substances/products which are known to be harmful. We were talking about the right to use/sell products whose safety, or lack thereof, is unknown. So I will repeat the question I asked earlier:
Ah, thank you for the clarification. I would argue that there is no right to conceal or withhold information regarding any
known unsafe features of any product within the market, or something unsafe that a reasonably cautious and diligent merchant/manufacturer
should have known about. And for those manufacturers who do put untested products in the market, they must make it clear that the product was untested and the risks that it could potentially pose, an let consumers weigh the pros and cons of buying the product. And if the product is unsafe, the manufacturer's ignorance or the buyer's willing risk would not protect them from product liability.
By what right, legal or moral, does a producer have to sell a product which puts both people and society at risk?
That is a very difficult question to answer, sangha. I do not think anyone has a right to put products into the market which they know could lead to harm and knowingly conceal the dangers from consumers. And I believe that manufacturers have a duty to tell potential consumers that their products are untested and might be unsafe. But I also know that even when every single danger presented by a product is made clear as day on the product itself, it does little to allay people who believe they will derive greater utility from the product that it is worth the risk.
The fact that there are several ways to achieve regulatory capture is not a reasonable argument for allowing one or more of the ways to continue.
Well, no. The reason I am against campaign finance reform has nothing to do with regulatory capture (although my reasoning for it is similar). The two reasons I am against campaign finance reform are thus: First, that I do not believe that the government should have any right to tell me (or anyone else for that matter) what I should be able to spend in support of a political candidate of my choosing, or how much I can spend on print, radio or internet advertisements on his or her behalf. That this may be abused by so-called "dark money" donors or moneyed interests is of little consequence to me because I realize that people who I do not like or with greater wherewithal (or both) must enjoy the same freedoms that I have if we are to have a truly free and law-governed society.
My second reason, and one that I consider just as important, is that I believe that campaign finance reform is simply another tool by which already existing incumbent power wishes to retrench and maintain itself. The wonderful thing about money is that it can be freely alienated. If you and I want to achieve a goal, but neither of us are particularly wealthy, we can band together and combine our financial resources to invest in a particular cause, and encourage others to join in with us. But once the government tells us that we cannot spend on a certain political cause, or committee, or for a particular candidate at a crucial time, we have essentially been robbed of our power and our voices. And whose benefit is that for exactly? Who stands to benefit other than the already-established and entrenched political powers and their gatekeepers?
You see, I completely understand the concerns that our politicians are being bought and paid for by our country's lobbyist and donor classes. That is a legitimate concern, mainly because we see it happening before our eyes within both political parties. However, the laws that would constrain the powerful with concentrated wealth and connections would be far more effective at constraining the weak and disparate. So I will take the status quo over what I see as a cynical power-play by the political gatekeepers who play on our sense of righteous indignation to allow them to attain even greater power and keep people out of the political process.
And I agree with the bolded.
Happy we could agree on that point.
eace
