Forums: Discussions for entrepreneurs and small business.

Well, for one thing, any restaurant that put into its food rat poisoning would be out of business almost immediately. Additionally, anyone who was poisoned and demonstrated that it was intentful use of rat poison would sue the owners into oblivion, and those owners would likely face attempted murder charges.

Otherwise, if they`re allowing rats to run free in the restaurant, they`d likely have a flea problem, and possibly a plague issue. I wonder how long the place would stay in business?

Now what about mice droppings and roaches? What about cooks who lose hair or spit into the food? If you don`t like that, don`t go to restaurants. Additionally, certain restaurants will have a very high reputation because over time, someone will have been in the kitchen, worked at the place, and otherwise brought out that sort of news.

We HAVE countless laws already on the books to handle these kinds of personal responsibility issues! If you don`t like cigarette smoke, then don`t patronize establishments that allow smoking. If you don`t like trans-fatty acids in your food, cook your own, and go to restaurants that advertise their TFA-free menus!

There already are statutes and limitations, laws and ordinances regarding the cleanliness of food service establishments. What happens when the next inane "study" comes out and demands that chairs should be a certain height because otherwise anyone over 300 lbs. can get leg embolisms when sitting for longer than 60 minutes?

It`s NOT the government`s job to legislate choice and morality. It IS a helpful function when that government ensures quality standards in *global* distribution points, particularly ingestibles. So the FDA is a valid function. To some extent, although not as it is, the EPA is at least justifiable.

But to force its way into the private ownership of a restaurant or bar isn`t in any way valid---not in the US, anyway. This is mob rule, where elected officials are pandering to their polling data for the sake of their election.

Taking it even further, and making it specific: I never back up my data--ever. I come to your company, set up a process, then fail (or choose never) to follow any of your requirements. First, why shouldn`t I sue your company if I lose all my data? Secondly, why shouldn`t I start a campaign to "force" you to use certain equipment, redundancies, and so forth?

Market pressures and customer choice should be the forces working on your business choices. The government might develop a certification process, and your company could then *choose* to become certified as a, say, Level-3 data protection company. But it should be a choice, not a legislated mandate.

Forcing restaurants to remove transfats from the menu is an inexpensive way of doing this.

You ever had a moment in time when there was this great big thing just sort of taunting you, deriding you, double-dog daring you to open a door that you just knew would go absolutely nowhere but down faster than a flush from one of those pressurized toilets? 

Well, this is one of those moments for me and I think I`ll just let it pass slowly by, ignoring all it`s tempting calls to make a case, because frankly, I just don`t have the energy today...

R-

Unaquaeque optio exitum habet - Every choice has consequences.





-------------------------


Quaerite Primum Regnum

"There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line."
~ Oscar Levant ~

Twitter: @rossb

"Taking it even further, and making it specific: I never back up my data--ever. I come to your company, set up a process, then fail (or choose never) to follow any of your requirements. First, why shouldn`t I sue your company if I lose all my data? Secondly, why shouldn`t I start a campaign to "force" you to use certain equipment, redundancies, and so forth?"

That is why I have customers abide by a contract.  I use industry standard equipment, and if the government says I have to use certain equipment to comply, then I will.  Many industries have to comply with many standards. 

Many of those standards are established by a consortium of those industries (ISO, IEEE, etc.), but oftentimes the need for the standards come from a regulatory need.  One example is with cigarettes.  The cigarette manufacturers knew since the 30s that their product was potentially harmful.  It wasn`t until what, the 70s before the government made them put a warning on the package.  And it was finally revealed in just the last few years that there was a known cover up.  If I recall, these cigarette executives stood in front of a Congressional Committee and lied about the safety of the product. 

I don`t think I used "putting rat poison in the food" as my example.  If I was misleading, I apologize.  No, what I meant was that if a restaurant is especially good at hiding a rat problem and you are there regularly without knowing that, how is it that the market is determining where you eat?  You`re eating at a place you like.  Maybe they have the best coffee or the best pancakes ... but they happen to have a rodent problem that they hide really well.

How about your example of a cook spitting in the food (or worse - I worked as a dishwasher at a restaurant when I was a young lad, and I`ve seen other bodily fluids make their way into the foods that were later served to patrons)?  Unless you saw it firsthand, how would you really know what`s in your morning oatmeal?  Obviously, no governmental entity can prevent the cook from sneaking something in the food, but if caught, the cook would probably be fired (the market force), but the cook would also violate an ordinance (fines and penalties paid in the public interest).  Not to mention, the cook would get a spot on the 6 o`clock news.

"It`s NOT the government`s job to legislate choice and morality." 

I couldn`t agree with you more.  Terry Shiavo came to mind when I read that.  Hmm.  Mr. Frist, legislation for one, please!

"But to force its way into the private ownership of a restaurant or bar isn`t in any way valid---not in the US, anyway. This is mob rule, where elected officials are pandering to their polling data for the sake of their election. "

Private ownership in this country is not possible without the government`s regulation.  Otherwise, it would be anarchy ... social Darwinism gone mad!

"Market pressures and customer choice should be the forces working on your business choices. The government might develop a certification process, and your company could then *choose* to become certified as a, say, Level-3 data protection company. But it should be a choice, not a legislated mandate."

Ever hear of HIPAA?  Sarbannes-Oxley?  Gramm-Leech-Bliley?  This government legislation is to protect the customers, patients, investors, etc of the companies I do business with.  One selling point of my service is that I can help my clients comply with these rulings.  So, regulation & legislation CAN bring about new opportunities.



-------------------------

Scott Watson.::.

Acme Data Online Backup Service     

Don`t Wait Until It Is Too Late To Recover Your Data

yup to believe that the market will `self regulate` is naive at best. Most people will sell you snake oil if they can convince you to buy it. Think about it, Genever was created around 1650 as a medicinal tonic, although few claim medicinal purposes today most people still drink it, you know it as Gin.

In regards to Trans fat... I`m glad they`re banning it. I agree, people should be willing to be responsible for their own health. I think too many people expect everyone else to look out for what they eat and they expect to just live forever on whoppers and fries.

If restaurants were more forthcoming with their ingredient lists, I would be fine with them just disclosing the information, and I could make the choice for myself. I`ve never seen a complete ingredient list for a big mac, a whopper, or even a meal at a fancy restaurant. I wish they had them! I would be looking for the hidden lactose, and all of the other ingredients that I don`t want.


-------------------------

It`s probably just as naive to think the market will self-regulate as it is to NOT believe that government won`t over-regulate.

History demonstrates that although the "market" (an abstraction) doesn`t self-regulate on a business-by-business basis, the operation of market forces doesn`t require constant government micromanagement.

Two examples come to mind. Do we still have slavery, here in the US? And what about child labor, is that still commonplace?

Yes, we as a society had to go through some upheavals in order for the two examples to go away. They haven`t been wiped out, but they`re certainly not prevalent. It wasn`t that the government stopped all this, it was that society itself stopped agreeing. The Child Labor laws, anti-slavery laws, "Right to Work" laws, all came about AFTER the society changed its mind.

So too, we have the immigration issue. No amount of legislation will stop the use of illegal aliens until the businesses using those people find it`s not profitable. Current immigration laws already on the books don`t work. It`s, again, like the Prohibition laws.

Private business USED TO operate without all the regulation. To make an argument that:
I think that`s only true in today`s overly regulated society. To say private ownership isn`t possible is simply wrong. What else is Startup Nation about? How much regulation is there on yours or my business?