Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,308,676
@previous (C)
You have no idea. As a former restaurant person who has worked every single position in a restaurant, I can assure you that, not only do many kitchens do literally deadly things, but food inspectors provide valuable work that changes kitchens for the better. Second, many restaurant have caused illness nd are still wildly popular.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 27 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,308,680
@previous (A)
I worked in fine dining and we knew when the inspector would come. Management told us exactly the hours they could possibly arrive, and once they made a visit there was a guaranteed number of days before they could come back.
Yes, restaurants have caused illness and people come back, but that's under the regulated system we have now. Apparently it doesn't work.
Libertarianism still allows those restaurants to be punished, it just doesn't waste money on inspectors that are mostly there for theater.
Many people can become sickened before that happens, and a lawsuit after the fact doesn't make the situation okay for the sick person, especially if someone died.
> Many people can become sickened before that happens
That's true of the system we have now. Health inspectors have not eliminated this problem.
Why does it only count when it happens under a libertarian system, but it's shrugged off under a nanny state?
> a lawsuit after the fact doesn't make the situation okay for the sick person, especially if someone died.
Compensation can cover medical bills.
The point is that businesses will avoid it in the first place because no one wants to pay thousands of dollars when they can just keep a clean kitchen.
Incentivizing safety does help people from getting sick to begin with.
> Health inspectors are easy to circumvent anyway, the government spends a lot without doing a good job checking those restaurants. > > If a place makes people sick, it will lose business. > > Someone who gets really sick can sue, libertarianism still allows for plaintiffs to punish dangerous businesses and recoup costs from the damage.
Drinking bleach makes people sick yet the free market did nothing to prevent it
> > Many people can become sickened before that happens > > That's true of the system we have now. Health inspectors have not eliminated this problem. > > Why does it only count when it happens under a libertarian system, but it's shrugged off under a nanny state? > > > > a lawsuit after the fact doesn't make the situation okay for the sick person, especially if someone died. > > Compensation can cover medical bills. > > The point is that businesses will avoid it in the first place because no one wants to pay thousands of dollars when they can just keep a clean kitchen. > > Incentivizing safety does help people from getting sick to begin with.
If you believe any of this shit you are truly retarded
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,308,704
I don't like this whole 1984 / Blade Runner / Matrix timeline we're on now - Libertarians don't either. I'd side with them before I'd side with Democrats (totally on board with surveillance state for 'the children') or Republicans (also on board with surveillance state under the guise of 'terror' or national security).
> I don't like this whole 1984 / Blade Runner / Matrix timeline we're on now - Libertarians don't either. I'd side with them before I'd side with Democrats (totally on board with surveillance state for 'the children') or Republicans (also on board with surveillance state under the guise of 'terror' or national security).
Ah yes, please tell me more about how little you understand about the world around you
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,308,746
@1,308,714 (boof)
They have every reason to be safe before anything bad happens.
Scheduling an inspection they know is coming doesn't fix it. An inspector won't know what dates are changed in the walk-in. Staff will hide the big violations if the inspector is due any day.
boof replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,308,754
@1,308,746 (C)
human nature is not necessarily governed by reason. requiring civil courts as an after-the-fact enforcement attempt is not good enough. we can always do better under any system, but not even a bit of third-party preventative is pathetically inadequate
> human nature is not necessarily governed by reason.
It would be if we let irrational people have the freedom to make mistakes. Building a padded world is what enables idiots to exist.
> requiring civil courts as an after-the-fact enforcement attempt is not good enough. we can always do better under any system, but not even a bit of third-party preventative is pathetically inadequate
Theoretically this could work, but ineffective inspectors that are easy to avoid doesn't achieve this. It's an expensive security theater.
Do you think the TSA does it's job? Criticism of the TSA doesn't equate to a belief that people should be free to do whatever they want on airplanes.