Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Libertarianism and the Police Message-ID: <614@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: Sat, 13-Jul-85 10:31:30 EDT Article-I.D.: cybvax0.614 Posted: Sat Jul 13 10:31:30 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 08:23:59 EDT References: <7800338@inmet.UUCP> <1340289@acf4.UUCP> Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 26 Summary: In article <1340289@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: > >/* mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) / 3:50 pm Jul 11, 1985 */ > > >Second, no information that would allow comparison of client's products to > >those of others will be released unless it shows the client's product is > >better. Non-profit groups don't have this problem. > > What you don't appear to have considered is that people will probably tend > favor the products of those companies that willingly submit their products > for testing. The stamp of approval of a testing agent would be a selling > point. And if people don't favor such products, it means they don't care > so much about these safety considerations, and therefore shouldn't be > forced to support government safety enforcement agencies. The testing organization you propose would not be in its business for philanthropy. Its goal would be money. It will charge for the service of rating a product. Because a favorable rating will be of value to the producer (a selling point), and a bad rating will cost, there will be a strong financial interest in a "gentlemanly" contract for the service, where only favorable information is released. I've heard this very complaint about camera magazines. I've never read a bad review of a product in one. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh