Product Liability in the Brave New World

[Robert]

The latest hazard to your health, it is reported sporadically, is your cell phone. It may give you brain cancer.

Verizon and Sprint etc. are in a tight spot here: if they disclose the hazard, sales will suffer. If they don't, some lawyer/solicitor will sue them on your behalf when your brain starts acting up. Some here are already ... well, never mind that.

The question is this: after we eliminate property and profit, the industrious TomK will continue inventing, manufacturing and distributing our cell phones. For nothing, see? What a guy. I'll stop by the factory to watch and cheer him on now and again, but that's about it.

Question is: What shall we do with him when one of his phones makes us sick? Sue him? For what? Nursing home vouchers? Or shall we just shut down his factory, make him wear a tall conical hat, and jeer him?

If we do that, who will step up and dare to improve our cell phones? Or will they "be confiscated" (note gentle passive voice) for our own good?

[BobKKKindle$]

What shall we do with him when one of his phones makes us sick?

If any product is found to be harmful in some way, the organizations which are responsible for mediating the interests of consumers and producers and improving the quality of consumer goods will try and find a way to resolve the problem, possibly by providing financial incentives to encourage people to make suggestions or offer a solution, if moral incentives are not sufficient. If there is no solution (of if the only possible solution is too expensive) the product should still be sold, possibly with a warning so people are aware of the possible health impacts of using the product.


The question is this: after we eliminate property and profit, the industrious TomK will continue inventing, manufacturing and distributing our cell phones.

No, the functions which are currently allocated to private capital should be subject to social control, based on a system of mediation and discussion between producer and consumer organizations, to decide on how much of each good should be produced, and how surplus should be allocated.

[pusher robot]

If any product is found to be harmful in some way, the organizations which are responsible for mediating the interests of consumers and producers and improving the quality of consumer goods will try and find a way to resolve the problem, possibly by providing financial incentives to encourage people to make suggestions or offer a solution, if moral incentives are not sufficient. If there is no solution (of if the only possible solution is too expensive) the product should still be sold, possibly with a warning so people are aware of the possible health impacts of using the product.


How do you offer "financial incentives" without money? Without property? How can you determine if something is "too expensive" without markets? Or prices?

[trivas7]

How do you offer "financial incentives" without money? Without property? How can you determine if something is "too expensive" without markets? Or prices?
This argument is a strawman -- as if people's incentive for keeping themselves healthy was monetary.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

if they disclose the hazard, sales will suffer.

As an extension - profits go down. Thus, he is compelled to consult with his financial lawyers about the benefits/positives of putting such danger into the market (Hey, corporations do it all the time).


For nothing, see?

No profits?

No reason to consult with his lawyer (and thus no need for this unproductive job).

Problem solved.

[pusher robot]

This argument is a strawman -- as if people's incentive for keeping themselves healthy was monetary.

It's NOT a straw man. He specifically used the term "financial incentives." I'm engaging with his actual, literal words, the exact OPPOSITE of a straw man.