I'm not sure I understand how this is germane to the issue of private versus governmental safety regulations. If the government's current workplace-safety measures are enforced chiefly by surprise inspections, then our theoretical private safety organization's measures could also be enforced chiefly be surprise inspections. What is the problem?
This means the restaurants wouldn't participate. They participate today because the government has access to police enforcement.
An evaluator who holds back due to litigation is not an effective evaluator. If indeed there is a demand for organized workplace-safety measures (as I believe there is), then this ineffective evaluator will find himself out of a job, supplanted through market forces by someone who is willing to do the job effectively--no need to have the government interfere here.
The market forces are for them to hold back. There will be no entry from a new player.
My sister has the same problem understanding that for some markets, there is *no possible player*. She is in a community with no cable and thinks it's a 'conspiracy'. No: it's just basic economics.
There's no convincing her, though. For some people 'The market' is sort of a God: it will provide! Of course, when it doesn't, there needs to be somebody to blame (Satan's role). Usually goes to government, liberals, socialists, feminists, tree-huggers. Whoever. Just so the religious don't have to abandon their creed.
The other solution for dealing with an 'informed' public is FUD. Just start up a competitor, and provide paid-for information. Of course, you have to hide behind a few layers of legal ownership, but as long as the restaurants keep making their payments, they'll get good reviews.
If monitoring a restaurant's health and safety record through, say, a commercial monthly publication, is inconvenient, prohibitively expensive, and otherwise undesirable, then I can assure you that such monitoring will not take that form. I imagine that an effective safety organization would require participating restaurants to post their health and safety records in a conspicuous location. I imagine, too, that the businesses themselves would likely foot the bill (instead of the consumer directly), as it would be in their best interest to be able to advertise their compliance.
Yet, it is the law that they do this today, and many are fined for 'forgetting' to post their business licences. Or even to get a buisiness licence. They share your view: too much government interference. If they want to cut meat in the men's room, then who's to tell them not to? (One of last week's findings in Vancouver).
So, the short answer: ****ing morons who buy an ongoing concern with a good repuation, and discover 'the hard way' (ie: by poisoning people) how to do it properly. Of course, they declare bankruptcy immediately, so the grieving families recieve no compensation.
A stitch in time.
Consider the MPAA's movie ratings system for an analogous situation. A parent doesn't have to buy a magazine every time he wants to see if a particular movie is appropriate for his child. A movie's rating is prominently displayed in all advertising material, and an archive of ratings is freely available for perusal at the MPAA's web site. The movie studio, not the customer, foots the bill to have a film rated and to have that rating easily available for anyone who wishes to look it up.
I specifically pointed out why this is a bad analogy: I'm sure Vancouver is typical: restaurant management changes approximately three times per year. Last year's good restaurant is this year's worst offender. You want to know what food will be like *today*, not three owners back.
Zagat *rates* restaurants. We already have that service. A rating is not the equivalent of safety testing: sales will not go to zero based on MPAA rating... it helps a market self-identify. There is no market for toxic food: it is simply destrucitve. And there is an incentive for restaurants to sell it (it is undetectable by the consumer, and harm is usually deferred and ambiguous, so it is difficult to successfully sue the vendor - I'm thinking specifically of carcinogens).
A better analogy with videos is: what if videos could be made cheaper with PCBs? We have manufacturing and trade laws to prevent companies from distributing materials that are a health risk without specific disclosure. Is there a market for PCB-laden DVDs?
Do you have any particular reason to think that things would work so drastically differently when it comes to health and safety?
Yes. As mentioned above. Furthermore, the stakes are higher. Nobody dies from watching the wrong rating of movie. People die from bad food preparation and serving.
Secondly, once you've seen the movie, you know what you got, and you know if you've been scammed. How do you know if the meat you ate was actually chicken? How do you know if it was laden with coliforms? Carcinogens?
Is it possible that this is because we already have governmental oversight? Do you suppose that the elimination of that governmental oversight might make private oversight more attractive?
"attractive", maybe. But the first thing people will do is what they did the last time there were only private evaluators: the history is that government oversight was the choice of informed and intelligent voters who determined that this was the most efficient and reliable way to ensure food safety. Unfortunately, people had to die first.
If consumers don't care about a restaurant's reputation with regard to health and safety, from whence did the pertinent governmental regulations arise?
They were always interested. But no private solution worked, so the public solution was implemented.
If there is enough interest in health and safety to justify governmental interference, then there is enough interest to support the private equivalent.
"Interest" isn't the same thing as economic demand. I have "interest" in gold bars in my sock drawer, and a cure for cancer. Ain't gonna happen just because I'm "interested".
Because I should not be held responsible for the actions of others, any more than I would expect them to be held responsible for my actions, which is exactly what happens when the government gets involved in something that could be more effectively handled by the private sector.
And yet, for generations, the private sector failed. "more effectively handled by the private sector" is counter to evidence: an article of faith. A mantra, if you will.
A bar or restaurant is a private establishment, and any health issues pertaining to it effect only those who consciously choose to patronize or to work in that establishment. If the father consciously choose to put himself in a dangerous environment, then, inasmuch as he can be held accountable for his own actions and choices, there is no wrongful death for which to seek justice.
Of course there is: the restaurant is making an implicit claim: "we will not kill our customers." If nobody could be held accountable for serving poison, I see a world where a lot of people get poisoned. I also see a world where everything is cheaper, because it carries a huge associated risk.
Even if we can assume that the risk-discount was applied to the lethal meal: would you like to live in a world where you feared every bite? Further: consider two societies: one that protects, versus one that does not. Over time, the one that rejects the opportunity to monitor easily-avoidable risks will find itself with children running in the streets looking for rotting food while the other grows healthy children. Maybe a better society will come along and outcompete us, but right now, it looks like the laissez-faire economies are failing in comparison. When my sister was in Vancouver, she bought meat 'off the record' from the Picton farm to stick it to the regulator. Food for thought.
Heck, Sealand's up for sale!
I've been to ex-Soviet republics (I was born in Lithuania), and this is the attitude indeed: no regulation, so caveat emptor. What is the result? Commerce implodes. Nobody trusts the butcher, the baker, or the candlestick maker. If somebody started a testing organization, the butcher would bribe them, so nobody would trust *them* either. Result: there is no economic demand for vendor evaluation! Unemployment is high (who would invest in capital, when there's no justice if you were defrauded?) Counterfeitting is rampant (whenever I go, I am asked to bring medicines, because if I bring them, they know they're genuine).
I have seen laissez-faire economies: they're a total mess. People are *afraid to buy*.
The trick is to recognize a balance, and trust the republic. It fosters commerce, the health of the citizenry, and - most importantly - it responds to their directive. You can disagree with it, and rail against the system, but I propose that the reason this argument has received no traction is because the electorate knows better and sees this approach as in their best interest.
