It is typical of statists to conjure up absurd scenarios, and then show that
government is needed to prevent them occurring. This is called a "straw-man"
argument, in which the protagonist sets up a "straw man" and then proceeds to
demolish him.
Such is the case with the Coca-Cola Company poisoning its customers in the
absence of government oversight. Why would the Coca-Cola Company want to poison
its customers? Aside from 1) loss of current customers from death, 2) loss of
future customers from the company's terrible reputation, and 3) lawsuits from
surviving relatives, I can't think of a single reason. Maybe gonzales can tell
us. In fact, of course, private industry goes to great pains to please its
customers in as many ways as possible consistent with the price the customer is
willing to pay. Industries that typically
make no effort to please customers are always the highly-regulated
ones--airlines, banks, insurance, etc. They have to please the government, and
have no need to please customers.
There are two industries in the US that murder its customers at an appalling
rate--tobacco and government-run roads. Regarding the latter, if any private
industry murdered its customers so publicly and with so much gore at the rate
of 40,000 men, women, and children per year, it would quickly be hounded out of
business. But of course, in government, nothing succeeds like failure.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
