What is the practical difference between a free market in which sellers are forced by law to be honest about the safety characteristics of their wares, and a "free market" in which manufacturers are forced to build their goods to a minimum safety standard, but which allows them to build to a higher standard than the minimum and to advertise those improved characteristics?
None, if there aren't laws that enforce standards.
What? In the first case, a law exists to force sellers to be honest about the safety characteristics of their wares. In the second, how else are manufacturers going to be
forced to build their goods to a minimum safety standard unless it's through the law?
Fine, I'll spell it out explicitly: what is the
practical difference between a free market in which sellers are forced
by law to be honest about the safety characteristics of their wares, and a "free market" in which manufacturers are forced
by law to build their goods to a minimum safety standard, but which allows them to build to a higher standard than the minimum and to advertise those improved characteristics?
Please think before you type, and don't introduce strawman arguments.
Might I suggest you look in the mirror on this one?
How is it that we're talking past each other like this? Makes for a frustrating experience for both of us, I'm sure.
For my part, I'm doing my best (however much that may be) to read and consider everything you're saying. You're probably doing the same. Neither of us is perfect, so I guess this kind of thing will happen from time to time.
By the way, if something is a strawman argument, I would appreciate it if you would point out how and why that is the case. I don't intentionally put forth invalid arguments like that. If/when I do so, it's the result of a misunderstanding or mistake on my part.