The newly enacted food safety regulations in the Senate (though differing House and Senate versions must now be reconciled to become law), highlights the naïveté of some of the more extreme libertarian fantasies. Indeed, it underscores how dangerous they can be when used to justify the “freedom” of large corporations – say Enron, BP, Monsanto, or Countrywide Financial. Or some of the industrial-strength food conglomerates that have been responsible for sickening and killing tens of thousands of Americans with tainted meats, eggs, spinach, peanut butter, and more.
The myth that the marketplace is reliably self-policing and self-correcting is just that – a self-serving ideological mantra based on false premises. Our large corporations use their power to try to manipulate and control the marketplace wherever they can – in their own interests, not ours. If we did not need them, then our own “freedom” would not be threatened. But we live in an immensely complex, interdependent society. For our own protection, we need carefully crafted and rigorously enforced regulations. It’s about more that a “level playing field.” It’s about having “rules of the game” – like any other contact sport.
Sometimes, in fact, even the players themselves may see the advantage of having rules, and referees. To take one example, some of the major players in the food industry got behind and supported the new food safety legislation, not because it was in the public interest but because they saw it as being in their own self-interest. As the social critic Charles Morgan put it many years ago: “Liberty is the room created by the surrounding walls.” Freedom always has boundaries, and those boundaries may even protect us from our own flaws, and follies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great blog and a tough issue. Here's another puzzle: "How safe is safe?" A libertarian like myself, who takes the principle of utility seriously, would ask: "What would it cost to monitor and enforce strict food safety laws that guarantee 100% safe food? How many government inspectors would it require? What would happen to the few remaining small farmers, truckers, packagers etc. if the cost of growing and handling food gets more costly? Actually, most of the food grown in China is raised by small farmers. The results I suppose would be that only large farmers, national trucking and packaging companies could afford to comply.
ReplyDeleteSuppose we decide that we really cannot afford 100% safe spinach. Would 90% suffice? 51%? What about green beans, eggs, chicken, fish, oranges?
Now as a minarchist, I am willing to accept the principle that the government might play a role in regulating food safety. But the devil is in the details. A more market-friendly approach might be to require food labels that the government can use to identify the source of contamination along the supply line (from farmer to Kroger) and inform consumers who's responsible for their salmonella poisoning. Then, let the criminal justice system decide on retribution. And of course, the offending contaminators would show up in the media and retailers would naturally avoid that company.
Whatever the solution, government would be better off working with the market than undermining it completely.
Oops...I forgot something: What about the price of food.
ReplyDeleteAnd, good news on your lecture at MSJ. Check your e-mail or Facebook messages.