Consumer protection: Compassion that kills
Posted in Dangerous Politics by R Lee Wrights on February 1st, 2009 by Mary J. Ruwart
How would the consumer be protected without licensing laws? Without the FDA, who will keep greedy corporations from poisoning people for easy profits? Without government-mandated product recalls, who will make corporations repair their defective products? Who will test the water to make sure it is pure?
Do licensing laws really protect us from unscrupulous business people? Surprisingly, Sidney Carroll and Robert Gaston found that licensing laws actually hurt us. They found that states with the most rigorous licensing laws for electricians, dentists, and optometrists have the greatest incidence of accidental electrocutions, poor dental hygiene, and blindness respectively!
How do licensing laws hurt the very consumers that they were designed to protect? Apparently, as requirements go up, fewer practitioners are able to obtain licenses, so they charge more for their services and make consumers wait for service. More people are tempted to risk their health by making their own electrical repairs, skipping their eye check-ups, and delaying visits to their dentists. Licensing lowers the amount of quality service that is actually delivered-especially to the poor.
If licensing laws hurt more than they help, can the marketplace do better? The answer is a resounding “Yes!” Voluntary certification does what compulsory government licensing can not.
Certification is a “Seal of Approval,” usually given by a professional association or independent laboratory to qualified products or service providers. The “UL” symbol found on electrical appliances is the certification from Underwriters Laboratories. Unlike licensing, certification is voluntary, not compulsory. Although electronics manufacturers are not required by law to get UL certification, retailers prefer to carry only products that meet the UL standard.
Carroll and Gaston noted that “certification (voluntary licensing) seems to increase the number of licenses compared to both no licensing and compulsory licensing” (emphasis mine). By increasing the number of service providers, certification decreases costs and increases the amount of quality service delivered. Certification gives consumers guidelines, but unlike licensing, leaves the final choice in their hands.
This freedom of choice can become critical in life-threatening situations. For example, the FDA currently sets such high standards for approval that the average drug takes 12 years and $300 million to develop. During this time, terminally ill patients are forbidden, by law, to try new therapies that might be under development. Even if they are lucky enough to be enrolled in a test study, they may get placebo instead of an active drug.
The FDA’s tardy approval of propranolol, the first beta blocker for heart disease, needlessly killed an estimated 30,000 Americans during the three years it was available in Europe. The FDA probably killed more people, by delaying this single drug, than it saved during its entire existence. Licensing laws are a cure worse than the disease.
Because of FDA “licensing” regulations, black market chemists do a brisk business supplying AIDS and cancer victims with underground versions of new, but unapproved, drugs. Certification is the more compassionate approach and doesn’t make criminals of people fighting for their lives. Professional pharmaceutical organizations, or even the FDA itself, could certify drugs as “untested,” “safe in animal testing,” “effective in humans,” etc. Consumers, with the help of trusted medical professionals, could make an informed choice that took into account their personal situation.
Indeed, before the FDA became so pervasive, the American Medical Association and Consumers Research tested new drugs themselves and gave good ones their “Seal of Approval.” The FDA, on the other hand, does no drug testing at all, but simply mandates that the drug companies do it. Third-party testing by multiple certifying organizations would be much more objective. Greedy corporations intent on defrauding consumers wouldn’t be able to falsify data, as they are sometimes accused of doing today. Medications without any certification data at all would likely be shunned by both physicians and patients, effectively putting bogus companies out of business.
Of course, certification is not an iron-clad guarantee. Testing cannot always predict the side effects of drugs nor can it predict every mechanical vulnerability. When defects do become apparent, however, the certification rating of a product is likely to be downgraded. To prevent losing customers, smart businesses will correct the defect through a recall or other suitable means so that their certification stays high. Businesses that won’t stand by their products will most likely go under, as consumers protect themselves by turning to reputable “brand name” manufacturers instead. Since certification increases the number of service providers, consumers would have more choices than ever.
Certification promotes consumer confidence and encourages expansion. Bottled water, for example, successfully competes with the tap water supplied by many local municipalities. Many consumers are dissatisfied with the taste of water that they get from public utilities or object to the health hazards of added chlorine or fluoride. Vendors obtain third-party inspections to certify that their bottled product is superior to tap water or that supplied by the competition. Reports are usually available on request so that consumers can comparison shop. If we woke up tomorrow to find ourselves in a libertarian world, we’d find a great deal of consumer protection already in place via voluntary certification.
Of course, if we wake up tomorrow to the status quo, we need to be very wary of compulsory government licensing. If we’re not careful, Big Brother will protect us to death!
References:
Sidney L. Carroll and Robert J. Gaston. “Occupational Restrictions and the Quality of Service Received: Some Evidence.” Southern Economic Journal 47: 959-976, 1981.
Mary J. Ruwart, “Protecting Ourselves to Death,” Healing Our World: The Other Piece of the Puzzle (Kalamazoo, MI: SunStar Press, 1993), pp. 85-96.
Dr. Mary Ruwart currently serves as an At-large Representative of the Libertarian National Committee. You can contact Dr. Ruwart at mary@ruwart.com.
Mary Ruwart: Consumer protection is ‘compassion that kills’ said,
February 1, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
[...] Mary J. Ruwart at Liberty For All. Ruwart was the 2008 runner up for the Libertarian Party nomination, and a past Libertarian [...]
Lidia Seebeck said,
February 2, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
Since the IPR discussion has become a slimefest, perhaps I can post a comment or two here that actually– gasp– talks about the article.
When we were tenovating the kitchen, Mike was pulling out the old (electric) stovetop (at the time there were two separate ovens and one stovetop). We turned off the electric to what we thought was the stove connection. Turns out it wasn’t. Mike got one heckuva shock when he contacted the stripped wiring. Yep, it was still live. After some chaos we were okay, but that short may have saved our lives.
We called our wonderful electrician and he came right out (at like 9 o’clock at night). He found out that not only was the circuit box a completely disorganized mess with labels not going to the right breaker, but that the wiring we shorted could have killed us.
The wiring to the stove was I think 9 gauge. But the wiring through the attic out to the circuit box was I think 11 gauge. What a mess, Charlie had to replace many feet of wire. But, had the short (or a short caused while cooking, or in the middle of the night) progrssed beyond the mismatched junction, a fire could have resulted. This was before we put in the side door, and the only way out was either into the garage– three steps from where the stove used to be– or the front door which might be blocked by such a fire. Our house could easily have become a deathtrap.
I have no problems with do-it-yourself. Goodness knows we’ve done our share and then some here. (anyone else here ever mudded a ceiling?) But there are times when you really NEED a professional, especially with electricity, and this massively over-regulated state makes them so expensive that, well, people sometimes risk death instead. Sad.
Kitty Antonik Wakfer said,
February 2, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
Well stated, Mary! And something that needs to be repeated often since so many people (young and older) have been raised on the idea that the individual is powerless without government.
The arguments you have presented are ones that I and husband Paul Wakfer have also made to explain how voluntary certification will work in a Society that is self-ordered without a government. And voluntary certification can, even now before the State withers away, be one of the ways of demonstrating the “unnecessary evil” that government actually is.
I took a look back in the archives of MoreLife Yahoo (because I knew this discussion had occurred there in the past) and here is the pertinent portion of a post from over 5 years ago - :
——— start quoted portion of old post —–
>In regard to services requiring certification and licensing, I know
>that in order for me to be a teacher, I had to pass the necessary
>certification process, also, in order for me to be a practicising
>nail technician I needed to pass a state borad and have a license. I
>have seen too many situations where unqualified technicians have
>caused serious harm to clients. These were unlicensed technicians,
>who had not met the standards required of the cosmotology board and
>practiced illegially.
The individual in a totally free society in which interactions are
by contract - the essence of the Self-Sovereign Individual Project -
individuals will be more responsible for their actions then they are
now.
[They will have learned to be so because they will bear the full brunt of the
responsibility for restituting their victims for any harm that they do. --Paul]
Private registration companies - ie. Better Business Bureau
and Consumers Union - would operate more plentifully and with more
ability to inform then [should be than] they are currently where governments support
the status quo. And each adult individual will be able to choose
services and products based on his judgment of what is in his long-
range best interest - not be forcibly limited by the actions of a
government. His choices will be greatly increased and his
opportunities for happiness.
——end of quoted portion post http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/264 ———-
In addition, voluntary certification is an extension of Social Preferencing, the practice of ascertaining, assessing and evaluating the Personal Social Characteristics of another member of society in order to decide whether or not and to what extent s/he wishes to initiate an interaction, which (Social Preferencing) is the ultimate effector of social order. (For more on this concept - http://selfsip.org/solutions/Social_Preferencing.html )
Some may think it a nit pick, but I am urging you to not use phrasing like “The FDA probably killed more people, by delaying this single drug, than it saved during its entire existence.” To be logically proper, the FDA did not “kill” anyone, not even “probably”; this agency however did definitely make it illegal for anyone in the US to give/prescribe propanolol to anyone also in the US. The fact many thousands of individuals died who likely would not have if they had received propanolol is a result of the government’s decree that this drug was not legal for use in the US; but again, the government did not “kill” those people. It is very important to be precise in assessing responsibility. Yes, many individuals decided that, because it was illegal to prescribe/sell propanolol, it was more in their own long range wide view best interest to not challenge the FDA by providing it, or letting it be known publicly that they would do so. Had they done so, maybe a considerable number of those estimated 30,000 USers with heart disease would be alive now, or at least would have lived a bit longer. What is also not known is how many individuals obtained propanolol for their own use or that of others by quietly disregarding its illegal status per the FDA.
Thanks again for an excellent presentation (with the exception noted above) of the arguments for voluntary certification rather than government registration/licensure.
–
**Kitty Antonik Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting
paulie said,
February 5, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
Lidia,
There is nothing we can do about what comments get posted at IPR - we have a free speech policy for everything except commercial spam, credible death threats, and revealing other people’s personal information without permission - but you are more than welcome to cross-post actual on-topic discussion to our discussion of the article as well. Don’t let the bad drive out the good.
Lidia Seebeck said,
February 5, 2009 @ 11:32 pm
Has the discussion at IPR effectively died? I don’t want to restart a contentious thread if possible. I understand– and applaud– the free speech policy, just lamenting the fools who would rather continue to harm than to regenerate this hurting Party?
Maybe I am “letting the bad drive out the good” but I’m finding it takes a big dose of courage to step into the blogs these days. Everything is so contentious. I know several of my friends feel the same way. Some of the best libertarians I know (who are well connected privately) don’t ever show on the blogs. A shame, really, people like John “Thomas” (a pseudonym he was fond of) Susan Marie Weber, and Jeff Wright could add so much in a serious discussion.
paulie said,
February 6, 2009 @ 9:47 am
Best thing to do is just to ignore troll comments, as they are a more or less unavoidable part of any unmoderated discussion.
I accept my share of the blame for responding to the troll at all, but I do have this tendency to respond to everything, which I have only curbed for egregious cases (LJ, most of the time, is the prime example).
I agree with you about the contentiousness. A real shame. I’m trying to be less contentious myself.
I also understand why good people wouldn’t want to participate in such a polluted atmosphere, but i also feel it is important to do so, or the trolls become our public image by default, and keep other good people from joining at all.