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