[CH] Chiles and Free Market concepts...
Rich McCormack (macknet@cts.com)
Sun, 01 Feb 1998 11:49:53 -0800
Regarding the Subject: Re: [CH] Powder and Comments
I realize this subject seems to have wandered off topic and become
non chile related, but that's not entirely true. I've subscribed to
the C-H mailing list for 2 or 3 years and have seen people come and go
and post their ideas and dreams of turning their chile related hobby
into a business. Most seem more interested in sharing the joys of
their hobby rather than making a profit...though I'm sure profit is
part of their dream.
Some apparently have been successful...there's quite a few subscribers
who are in the business of selling chile related products of one form
or another. I assume they've all gone through the steps required by
various government agencies from city or county business license to
state sellers permit and on through local, state, and perhaps even
federal food and health regulatory agencies...all of which comprise the
stumbling blocks of bureaucratic red tape and government regulation I
mentioned as being in the way of individual enterprise and entry into
the world of commercial production. In further comment, I suggested
that free market self regulatory mechanisms would be more economical
and just as effective, if not more so, than volumes of government
regulation and layers of government bureaurocacy...and that prompted
several private (and to the C-H list) questions and comments:
>Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 09:35:55 -0800
>From: Constance Allen <callen@sirius.com>
>I don't understand what is meant by "free market self-regulation through
>voluntary association and certification".
>Would this mean that the beef industry would monitor the quality of the
>meat
>we buy?
>Or that the dairy industry would certify the milk and cheese that is sold?
>Or that the growers of tomatoes andd strawberries would certify the level
>of
>pesticides in their produce?
Not exactly, read on...
>Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 12:28:53 -0600 (CST)
>From: David Wright <dtwright@texas.net>
>I, of course, am not trying to speak for Rich, but here's what I thought of
>when I read his statement.
>I was a museum director in the '70s when we, collectively, realized that we
>would have to develop our own standards for the museum profession unless we
>were willing to have government agencies do it for us. This resulted in a
>museum certification program that separated what we think of as "real"
>museums from the roadside "see the two-headed Gila monster" kinds of
>places.
>It's the same idea as the AMA setting standards for physicians in
>conjunction with government, rather than having governments set them
>arbitrarily. As Rich said, it is "voluntary association and certification,"
>and says to the world that a certain group is proud to meet standards set
>by fellow professionals.
David understands the concept I'm trying to present...almost.
Through voluntary association, a self-interested group of producers,
with input from all who belong, would set quality standards for itself.
The actual certification process would be contracted out to private
enterprise, non-affiliated, third party businesses specializing in
guaranteeing quality control and adherence to the standards set by the
association. Those standards would be available to the consumer, along
with a list of members who were curently certified as meeting the
standards. With such information at hand, the consumer would be able
to make choices with regard to their own standards of quality and be
free to patronize those business that meet their standards.
I feel such private sector, voluntary regulation would mean higher
profit for the producer and lower cost to the consumer. At the very
least it would keep more money circulating in the private sector and
less money being thrown down the wasteful government/bureaurocratic
regulatory rat hole.
And what of entrepreneurs and other producers who choose NOT to belong
to such associations that set standards for the group and certify that
such standards are being met...? That's were Calvin and his powder
come in.
Calvin offered free samples of his product. Many people tried it,
liked it, and were willing to pay for more. Could anyone ask for a
more classic example of a mutually agreeable contract between willing
seller and willing buyer? That's the free market working at its very
best. The government should butt out!
BTW -- To those who posted to me privately with pessimistic opinions
about human nature and the tendency of people to ignore standards of
quality and cleanliness and to otherwise exploit their fellow humans
for the sake of profit: I just don't share in your pessimistic point
of view...
Rich McCormack (Poway, CA) macknet@cts.com
Who is Rich McCormack? Find out at:
http://www.free.cts.com/crash/m/macknet/