Free Market Free-For-All

[Paranoid Pessimist]

Here's my question to the "principled" libertarians of the Rand Paul stripe who claim "the free market" can right all wrongs if people are free (from government interference in the form of regulatory requirements) through a process described thus: the people see that the providers of goods and service are not delivering the goods (and services) as advertised so they then exercise their freedom and go to another provider who does deliver the goods (and services). Businesses that "can't compete" lose out and go bankrupt.

How does this work with poisons in the food supply? How are those who die from eating tainted food free to take their business elsewhere? Should food sellers be "free" to sell tainted food with only the knowledge that "market forces" will favor their rivals who aren't killing people with tainted food? The caveat emptor "let the buyer beware" ethos may have been OK during the days if ancient Rome (the prototypical "empire"), but back then there weren't scientific methods to deal with poisoned food. There are now, but if governments cannot be mandated to be required to use these techniques, what's to prevent people from selling bad food until "market forces" out the poison pushers, sending the surviving customers elsewhere? What would keep those in the business from changing their name and selling bad food under a new name ("You shot me but a new guy!")?

And when the businesses who aren't doing the free market right thing go out of business due to "market forces," who would adjudicate without (government run) bankruptcy courts? Would these too be privatized and, if so, how could the process be kept free from outcome bribery? And what about cleaning up the bodies of those who die? How could that process be privatized to turn a profit?

I also ask these questions of those who think that Ron Paul would be a great choice for president because he's against our wars: Do they understand that he's against our wars because they're done by government, not because they're horrific miscarriages of morality? If the wars could be profitably privatized all the way, would he still be against them?

[OHdem10]

1. That Rand Paul is a real piece of work. Right now he has put

a "hold" on Legislation in Senate which is aimed at
Safety regarding Gas Lines. Just in case, a hold is
a measure one individual Senator can employ to block
legislation.

Back Story accoring to Rachel Maddow Show:

Recently a Gas Pipe Line Exploded. This is the second
one in a relatively short period of time. After all
we do expect exploding gas lines to be popping off
on a regular basis. The Senate developed Legislation
regarding Safety and Gas Pipe Lines.

Yes, you are hearing correctly. Rand Paul promptly
put a hold on the legislation so it cannot even brought
to the floor.

Pauls explanation: I do not even like the IDEA of any
NEW REGULATION

Your post is excellent. Just had to share this story
because it seems so applicable.

Hope you are near a gas pipe line. We cannot have
any regulations.

[valerief]

2. Laissez ain't fair. nt

[Viva_Daddy]

3. Such radical liberterianism is just Anarchy

Try running an army without regulations.
Try playing a game of baseball without rules or umpires.
If Rand Paul like no government so much, let him move to Somalia and become senator there.