Bust-Up Over Caveat Emptor

Government has no right to interfere in people's free choices.

We at Scragged welcome (well, hope for, actually!) responses from readers and have been blessed with generally high-quality comments.  Rare indeed is the foul-mouthed flame who must be deleted or edited.

As the purpose of Scragged is to get people to think, so we welcome all thinkers, especially those that think otherwise than we because they make us think.  In fact, we occasionally spin an article to stimulate response on a subject of public debate; it's a sad day indeed when no fiery replies are forthcoming.

Then there are those wonderfully stimulating occasions when the response is fiery indeed, but from a totally unexpected direction.  Such was the case with "I Wuz Robbed!" in which we discoursed on the frustrations of multi-level marketing and excessive government regulation.

Even though life's forays into the riches of MLMs proved less than fruitful, it is not really the job of government to interfere in private contracts between two consenting parties; the only result when they do is to enrich the lawyers.  To illustrate this point, in a series of references to widely-known exercises in lawyer enrichment appeared the following line:

It's often turned out that the case was bogus from the start: silicone breast-implants are once again available now that the science has proven that they are harmless and that they always were harmless, but that is no consolation to the shareholders and employees of Dow Corning who lost everything when it was driven into bankruptcy by the avalanche of lawsuits.

It was this almost throwaway line, a pebble in the avalanche of expository illustration, that captured the imagination of our Gentle Readers.  A vehement response arose from ladies protesting that, in fact, silicone implants "are not safe and we who got sick from them were robbed."  What's more, "No one has proved breast implants are safe -- they went back on the market on the absence of evidence that they are sufficiently dangerous."

Therein lies an essential truth which Scragged has explored before, but which clearly requires further illustration.

Enemies?  Or Vendors?

In the days of our Founders, the primary role of government was viewed as protecting the citizens from "enemies Foreign and Domestic."  We still view this as the key function of government; any government which can't accomplish at least that much is hardly worthy of the name.

Obviously, a government has to have enough military force to protect its territory from the predation of foreign forces; any land which can't won't be independent for very long.  This is why the current debate over illegal immigration is so heated; although the illegal immigrants are not a military force, they are nevertheless unauthorized invaders, and the fact that our government makes few attempts to control them is gravely worrying.

Government must also be concerned with domestic enemies - that is, criminals.  The past half century saw a time when our cities appeared to be "ungovernable" because crime ran rampant, innocents were prey, and the police appeared ineffectual.

But the problem simply turned out to be bad government, as Guiliani and his emulators demonstrated.  Today, most American cities, while hardly Edenic, are a far cry from the dystopic 1970s.  Local government concentrated on its key job of protecting public safety, and mostly accomplished it.

However, the same half century has seen a worrying trend in American society which has yet to be reversed: that of expecting the government to protect us, not just from enemies, but from everything: misfortunes, acts of God, blind chance, even our own genetic makeup.

A century ago, the thought that a person could win a lawsuit caused by spilling "excessively" hot coffee on themselves would have been met by gales of laughter.  The idea that a business could not fire a drunk, but must tolerate and pay for treatment for his "disease of alcoholism" was nonsense; and the theory that government could (never mind should) outlaw the consumption of legal substances which might be "unhealthy" would have been seen as what it truly is: an infringement on individual freedom.

Businesses do not want to kill their customers.  They do not want to make customers sick or harm them in any way: a dead customer won't buy again!  Yes, people are harmed by bad products, and a conscious fraudster is an enemy with whom government should get involved; but not otherwise.

The principle of law was "Caveat Emptor", which means "Let the buyer beware."  That placed the responsibility squarely where it rightly belongs: on the purchaser.  Do your research, make your own choice; nobody is forcing you to buy this or that.  Or at least, nobody ought to force you.

Freedom to Choose

What business is it of the government's if we choose to eat at McDonald's, smoke tar-filled cigarettes, go without air bags, smoke pot, or drink ourselves into a stupor?

Of course it is government's concern if we get drunk and drive - that's potentially negligent homicide against an innocent victim who deserves government protection.  If companies, such as cigarette companies, are knowingly selling a harmful product and concealing that knowledge, the power of government should be used to bring the truth into the light of day.

In 2008, however, there is not anyone alive with the intelligence to light a cigarette who is not intimately aware of the overwhelming mountain of evidence proving smoking's harm.  Everyone who's ever stood in line at McDonald's and looked around at their fellow-diners can instantly deduce that what's served there might not be the healthiest staple; and the very concept of placing foreign objects inside your body should give anyone pause.

None of these things are forced on anyone.  Nobody is required to light up a cigarette, or take a drink, or eat greasy fries, or get breast implants.  Anyone is free to choose not to do any of those things.  It may be a more or less appealing choice, perhaps, and there are costs associated with either decision.  But it is a choice.

When you come right down to it, the yearning to restrict other people's choices is a pretty good definition of a liberal: someone who believes that you should be prevented from making bad choices and protected from the consequences of bad choices or misfortune.

Smoking is bad for you?  Outlaw it, or make it as inconvenient as possible.  Kids are hurt in car accidents?  Require everyone to purchase expensive and awkward car seats until the kids are all but grown up despite the fact that the expensive seats accomplish nothing.  Some people died after taking a medicine?  Ban it - despite the fact that other people will die without it.  People who don't die because of something don't make as good press, apparently.

The Perilous "Precautionary Principle"

Shouldn't we be absolutely sure something is safe before we try it?  Nonsense!  This noxious "Precautionary Principle" is a death-blow to progress, improvement, and indeed science itself.

Haven't a great many people been killed in fires over the years? Certainly the fabled inventor of fire could never have proven that it was safe - it's not.  But hopefully we all agree that the benefits of fire outweigh its hazards - always have, always will.

There is a first time for everything.  Every new medicine has to have somebody who is the very first person to swallow it.  Every new mode of transportation has to have one intrepid soul who is the very first to strap it on.  Sometimes those people earn their place in history; other times, they expire in agony.  But as long as they know the chance they are taking and choose it voluntarily, what business is it of government to interfere?

Aren't you glad that Ben Franklin performed his famous experiment with lightning, a kite, and a key?  Nobody would dare to try it now, because we know you'd likely be incinerated.  He didn't know that; he tried it; he wasn't; and he learned something that became the foundation of modern technology.  Wasn't that worth it?  Yet what would OSHA say if someone wanted to try a similar test today?

You don't have to be a famous scientist to take chances.  We take our lives in our hands every time we get in a car - but we do it, because the rewards of driving a car outweigh the risks.  This applies to every choice we make - yes, even the decision to get breast implants.

As Rosa Brooks pointed out in Slate, attractive people earn as much as 14% more than ugly people.  Over a lifetime, that mounts up to a lot of money.

So if it's your considered opinion that you, personally, would be much more attractive with larger breasts, what gives the government the right to forbid it?  Your decision does no harm to anyone else.  It should be your sole choice, as long as all the available potential hazards are not concealed, and the facts are made available as best as is known.

Nobody has a crystal ball.  Lead paint was used for centuries before anyone guessed that it was harmful.  At one time, cocaine and morphine were considered great advances in medicine, because they could cure diseases even worse than addiction.  How is it right to hold a company liable for a product which they made and sold in good faith with no particular reason to suspect it might be deadly?

Leave the Lawyers Out


Once a court of law gets involved, truth usually goes out the window.  As our respondents so eloquently demonstrated, there are a great many people today who firmly believe that silicone breast implants are a deadly poison right up there with cyanide and plutonium.

It's their right to believe this.  Nobody should ever, ever force them to have breast implants, and if they want to dissuade their friends and relatives from having the surgery, it's their First Amendment right to make their arguments as eloquently as they are able.

On the other hand, a great many scientific studies have found no link whatsoever between illness and silicone breast implants.  One side is surely right; the other is surely wrong on a statistical basis.

There is nothing in any study that eliminates the possibility of someone, somewhere having a bad reaction to silicone, or to aspirin or peanuts for that matter, due to a really unusual genetic makeup.  Statistics don't matter when you take a drug, what matters to you is how you react to it.

By forbidding people to make their own choices, liberals are actually showing disrespect for them.  Liberals are saying, "You are too stupid to make the right choice; I am smarter than you are, so I will make the right choice for you."  This is the attitude of tyranny, nothing more, nothing less.

That's why Scragged makes no apology for its generally, though not totally, libertarian views.  In any debate between allowing something or not allowing it, the burden of proof must absolutely rest on the side wanting to limit freedom.

Certainly there are many things we can rightly prove to be wrong and justly outlaw: murder, rape, fraud, and theft come immediately to mind.

American legal tradition calls for a criminal to be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt."  The same standard should be used for government interference in individual liberties.  Let each man be his own master to the greatest extent possible.  Or are we so far gone that, truly, we'd rather someone else just tell us what to do?

Petrarch is a contributing editor for Scragged.  Read other Scragged.com articles by Petrarch or other articles on Society.
Reader Comments
The truth about technology is that it is impossible to determine the extent of its damage before it is fully released.

It would not have been possible to know that cars would effect the environment in the manner that they have when Otto Von Disiel was sticking parts together in the 1890s. It took 100 years of mass market use and refinement before the supporting industries started noticing/caring about the effects. This isn't because everyone was evil 100 years ago. It was because no one KNEW to care about the problem. Research ON a technological advancement always comes AFTER the technological advancement is released. There is no incentive to do it before. The only incentive to refine something is because their is potential to sell more of it or different versions of it. Until it can be proven profitable at all, there is no reason to refine it. The business of technological advancement, by its very nature, preempts any reason to research its environmental effects.

Someone will respond to this, saying "then why are we studying environmental affects now for new products" which furthers my point.

What do we care about now? "Global warming" also referred to as "climate change". Sure, products are rated against that bar RIGHT NOW. In 20 or 30 years though, when a solution to climate change is produced (or perhaps we learn that climate change is no longer a valid concern) those exact same products will be held to a new issue - the new, fashionable environmental concern of THAT time. And those products will mostly fail. They will be blamed and their inventors sued.

Medical and environmental concerns are always worried about after products are released that prove them because there is no incentive to find a concern prior to the release.
July 8, 2008 9:34 AM
Great article, thanks for some of those links throughout, I found them very educational!

I find it horrible that a company has to go through years of FDA approval to have the ability to sell their product. At the very least, people who will otherwise die should be allowed to take it, any long term risks are certainly outweighed by short term gains.

I find it even more morally reprehensible that after all that work to get approved if the drug later is found to have ill effects the company, and not the FDA that approved it is held liable despite their approval of the drug. Once a drug is approved by the FDA no company should be able to be sued for ill effects it causes unless they are found to have knowingly hid data or intentionally did not investigate a possible issue.
July 8, 2008 9:34 AM
"I find it even more morally reprehensible that after all that work to get approved if the drug later is found to have ill effects the company, and not the FDA that approved it is held liable despite their approval of the drug"

Lawsuits against the government should involve much more than money settlements. People should get fired. Deptartments should get shut down.
July 8, 2008 9:37 AM
Excellent post! I agree with you completely, with two exceptions:

1) If someone CHOOSES to smoke and ruin their health, they are acting stupidly (as is their right). However, I welcome government restrictions that attempt (most times unsuccessfully) to FORCE them to not contaminate my air space. I'd also like to see a way that I would not have to pick up the medical bill for their smoking-related illnesses (that they also chose), especially while elderly and truly-disabled people are having their government Medicare cut.

2) You state, "There is a first time for everything. Every new medicine has to have somebody who is the very first person to swallow it. Every new mode of transportation has to have one intrepid soul who is the very first to strap it on. Sometimes those people earn their place in history; other times, they expire in agony. But as long as THEY KNOW THE CHANCE THEY ARE TAKING AND CHOOSE IT VOLUNTARILY [emphasis mine], what business is it of government to interfere?"

I am opposed to medical experimentation on animals. Firstly, the results do not translate accurately to humans (too many "Thalidomide" examples to count). Secondly, no one will EVER convince me that animals participate in mutilation and vivisection "voluntarily".

There are far more accurate ways to test new meds, that would be safer for subsequent human use, than using animal experimentation. Most companies conducting animal experimentation know this but they refuse to change because they might have to refile for government funding.

July 8, 2008 10:37 AM
Just *pay* whoever adopts the medicine first a hefty fee. Oh wait, we already do that!
July 8, 2008 11:12 AM
I live in California, where there is a ban on smoking in bars.

In my city, there was once a bar that was incredibly popular. It was completely overfilled every night, and especially on Friday and Saturday. If you didn't get there before 7pm, you just weren't getting in. About the same time, most of the other bars in town were rather dead.

What was it that made this bar so popular? It was the only non-smoking bar in town.

Along comes the smoking ban. Now, this bar is practically abandoned, while the others are always busy.

Without the ban, the free market would have easily fixed that problem. Who FORCES you to patronize a smoke-filled bar?

As far as medicine - I have never understood why, for example, someone who is DYING from AIDS can't get an experimental medicine. Ok, so it might kill them - BUT THEY'RE DYING ANYWAYS! But our kind and generous big brother needs to keep us safe.

And, Brennan - if you don't like animal experimentation, then don't use drugs that were tested on animals.
July 8, 2008 12:01 PM
"if you don't like animal experimentation, then don't use drugs that were tested on animals"

Is there any way to tell that from the bottle?

I suppose one could visit the manufacturer's web site, but then that would mean having to actually use your brain and roll up your sleeves a little. Imagine that.
July 8, 2008 12:07 PM
For those readers who did not like my comment about animal experimentation (and suggested I not use any drugs that were so tested), I am in total agreement about not using those drugs.

It is NOT difficult to find who does animal testing versus who doesn't, especially if you are willing to research the issue, which I, and other animal lovers, do routinely.

You'd be amazed how many rabbits have their eyes burned-out so that men and women can have the luxury of hair color, or fragrant shampoo and conditioners. Or the large corporations who torture and kill animals routinely to test the "safety" of everything from dish soap to dog food.

For anyone who wants to TRY to be as cruelty-free as possible, there are numerous sites on the internet listing which medicines, cosmetics, home care products, etc. are/are not tested on animals.

Again, I repeat, there are many alternatives to animal experimentation that are SAFER TO HUMANS and kinder to animals, but most people don't care enough to make it the norm.

As for a Smoke-Free restaurant/bar that can't do any business, there has to be something wrong with the food/drinks/entertainment. In the many states I've travelled through (48 so far), Smoke Free restaurants with good food have always been packed at mealtimes.
July 8, 2008 2:22 PM
Brennan is spot-on. He feels that animal experimentation is wrong. He stays true to his moral beliefs by, personally, not using products tested on animals, including going to the bother of researching which ones are and aren't; and, I gather, he lobbies the companies to change their ways.

As free Americans, we can all support this approach, even if we don't happen to agree with his views. What is free speech, but the right to try to convince others?

Notice the difference between Brennan's argument and those of a liberal: the liberal would be saying animal experimentation should be banned by law. No persuasion required, just force.

Oh, and it's funny how he says that "Most companies conducting animal experimentation know this but they refuse to change because they might have to refile for government funding." Yet another example of government meddling in the market causing unintended consequences! Why shouldn't private companies have the right to change their methods if they think it best?
July 8, 2008 3:06 PM
The problem with the smoke-free bar was that it WAS doing fine - UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT INTERFERED. It is no longer so popular, because now, ALL bars are smoke-free.

As for the animal research issue - choose to use the products that don't use animal research if you have a problem with it. But don't get the government to FORCE companies to change.

The "Green" movement has a similar problem: Doing things to "clean up" the environment is a good thing (although I find many of their efforts short-sighted). FORCING people to change by government mandate is where the problem is. Funny how they feel they have to go that route, instead of just convincing people to change, isn't it?
July 8, 2008 3:58 PM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...