[Steven_K]

Why would fraud be illegal in libertarian society? Shouldn't the public have the right to believe anyone they want?

Another question, I know this may be one of the small funcionality things, but why would an orginization have a profit incentive to ensure resteraunts are clean? The only replacement for a governing body in ensuring cleanliness at a resteraunt would be some orginization which regularly inspects etc, but how would they turn a profit?

[Noumenon]

Fraud should be illegal because of the idea of consent. Suppose person A agrees to buy person B's car for $1000, when person B claims that his car is brand new and in good shape. Person A gives B the $1000, but instead of receiving a brand new car, he receives an old clunker. That was not what was agreed to. Person A did not consent to exchanging his $1000 for this old clunker. So person B has in effect stolen the $1000, since he obtained it without consent from its owner. Person B is a thief and would be prosecuted in a libertarian society. Any other false advertisers would also be considered theives.

[Steven_K]

That same logic justifies licensing for restaurants. They appear clean, but they in fact are crawling with mice and cockroaches in back. The buyer is under the impression they are eating at a healthy restaurant, but they aren't. Government regulation is in fact just pre-emptive fraud prevention. Ditto with regultion of pharmaceutical industries.

[Noumenon]

That is certainly fraud if you are paying for a clean meal but instead recieve a dirty one. The types of regulation that prevent fraud are acceptable. However, a libertarian government would have to be careful to not overstep its bounds and impose regulation that violates individual rights. Government regulation can often be a slippery slope. In the early 1900's, the government starting regulation the food industry to prevent the mice and cockroaches and such. That was acceptable, in my opinion. But now it presumes the power to regulate smoking in restaurants because they are "public places." That goes beyond the concept of fraud. The patron knows if the restaurant allows smoking, so you can't the restaurant owner is defrauding him. It won't be long before restaurants and other "public places" are just property of the government, Soviet style.

[Pablo]

Entirely off-topic. Is there a methodology, i don't know about, that libertarianism uses that is contstructed around the constant use of stupid subjective analogies to produce any required result, even if it doesn't have any grasp of reality?

I keep seing it argued this way and it is incredibly weak.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Another question, I know this may be one of the small funcionality things, but why would an orginization have a profit incentive to ensure resteraunts are clean?

That's a non sequitur. If a restaurant isn't clean, it can be a health hazard. Would you wish to eat at a restaurant and catch a disease?

In a free market, those who don't clean their restaurants would be at a disadvantage to those who do.