[natedogg]

The article showed how even though there were ZERO regulations on restaurant cleanliness, there was still a concerted effort by the society to establish clean restaurants.

Amazing that people can organize effective systems to achieve their social goals and values even without a government program or regulation.

Now, some might be concerned that without government codes and inspectors we'd all eventually die of food poisoning from some dirty rathole restauarant. This is what Cyrus more or less implied.

Let's examine that notion.

If we lived in a world where restaurants were completely unregulated, how would you know that you could trust a given restaurant to be cleanly?

Well for one, there's price. Anyplace with four stars and $40 entrees is going to have to poison 0 people per year to stay in business. But it seems unfair that only the rich can feel safe at a restaurant, so we must enforce codes via govt inspecters right? Wrong.

Even non-wealthy people want to live, so imagine you, a lowly middle class wage earner, have a desire to eat out one day but you want to be sure you won't die. How would any restaurant be able to assure of this?

Like many other industries such as securities and insurance and autos, there is always room for a third party analyst. If all the regulations disappeared, I would gladly start a new company that did nothing but inspect restaurant kitchens and bathrooms and put our seal of approval on the door. For a small fee.

But you might worry that we would become corrupt and certify anyone, except for that little problem we call "market share". My company must provide accurate seals of approval otherwise YOUR company will take my customers.

Even then, it might be hard for a consumer to meaningfully distinguish the quality of privatized restaurant inspectors.

Another way to add insurance that you won't die is just that: insurance.

Would you be willing to patronize a restaurant that wasn't insured for damages against poisonings? I wouldn't. So, in addition to seeing a seal of approval from "natedogg's Restaurant Inspection Corp", I'd also want to see a certificate of insurance from "Rothbards' Restaurant Poisoning Liabilty Insurance Company".

Eventually I'd only feel the need to see the insurance proof, since I woudl know that no insurance company would insure this place without having it inspected by a reliable inspector.

But, you might say, how am I to know that the insurance company is doing so? How can I be sure this insurance certificate on the door is from a company that is not only solvent, but prudent and diligent? How do I know they are not just a front?

Allow me to introduce you to "Morningstar". They rate insurance companies. If you don't see a high rating on the certificate you go down the street to a restaurant with a certificate that has one. Or if god forbid they claim a fraudulent rating, they will have to answer to Morningstar in court.

So you see, a reliable way to ensure restuarant cleanliness would certainly occur even without government regulations. And in the process, lots of profit making and job creating and investment returning, all of which does NOT occur under the more inefficient, incentive-less government version we have now.

Everytime you hear of a restaurant poisoning, and they do happen from time to time despite the regulations we have in place, do you also hear that the entire health department has been fired?

Well guess what, under the free market system, they would suffer market loss if not go out of business. Any restuarant that had subscribed to an insurance company that used an unreputable inspector would switch carriers the day after another restuarant using the same carrier had had a poisoning.

With the government system we have now, nothing changes, no one is fired, and no one has any incentive to avoid mistakes or even to work diligently at all. No one is accountable for anything that goes wrong.


natedogg