PER 2015
In this case, if every single good and service had no branding, logo or advertising but just a name, would the quality improve? It would be safe to say yes. The only way to compete would be through quality, with prizes and free tickets to theme parks becoming a thing of the past. The idea of no branding, isn’t new either, with Canadian supermarkets having generic food and drinks since the late 1970s. The leading brand, “No Name”, has basic packaging with only the basic product information
and name on a yellow background and since the producers focused on keeping quality high and prices low, it became an instant hit, quickly rivalling major-name brands. So maybe restricting how products are advertised and produced could have a major impact on the quality we get. Staying on freedom in the markets, there have always been arguments against having a free markets, or in other words leaving them unregulated. In these instants, companies would have the freedom to put addictive substances in their food and drinks, thus
Some no name® drinks
hooking their consumers. Why is this a bad thing? Well the obvious answer is this, they’d be poisoning you, but also they would have the freedom to ramp up prices knowing that there’d be little or no chance of consumers going elsewhere as they’d be missing out on their fix. Of course this is an incredibly cynical view, but the sad thing is that this actually does happen, and in the unregulated, illegal markets things such as bleach, rat poison and other hazardous and potentially fatal substances are mixed into the products with the producers only focusing on one thing; profit. Many liberal groups suggest legalising these products to ensure they’re “safe” but here’s the thing: Restricting people’s freedom can also be a great tool to ensure their wellbeing. One hotly debated topic in many advanced and leading nations is the legalisation of marijuana. Many opposition groups question the illegality of the drug, but the reasoning behind restricting people’s usage is well thought out. A substance which causes noticeable and long lasting damage will bring a strain on the National Health Service, as resources which could be used for dealing with serious and life threatening injuries will be diverted. Bearing that in mind, the government’s policy of limiting the sale of harmful goods means that the taxpayer’s money will be better spent and can focus on more important areas of the health services. In more serious and extreme cases, we assume that most people have no sense of morality, and so the only way to enforce a moral code is through a legal system. Take murder for example, if we did not restrict people’s “freedom” to slaughter their neighbours, we would have heavily armed civilians barricading themselves into little communities with their own laws and judicial systems. This analogy links nicely to the underlying floor of anarchism. Say during the next anti-austerity rally things turned violent, and the next thing we know there’s a revolution, with anarchists at the front. Well soon the UK would become an ungoverned state, with each and everyone one of its citizens free to do as they wish, and fair enough that on the surface doesn’t sound too bad. Under this almost blissful and free exterior, darker things emerge. No laws means that crime can now become evenmore common place with less of the stigma, and so the only way to stop people shoplifting is through force. People will start to group together, realising that each community will need some sort of code of practice to ensure everybody is happy and protected, and more than likely, as the community grows, certain people will be designated to enforce the regional code. Now, seeing as this already seems
42
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker