Posted by janey, Wed Sep-13-00 11:29 AM
I understand that you're arguing for Quality, but still the question stands: Is it better to prevent low-quality, low-priced goods from going on the market in the first place thereby keeping them out of the hands of the poor, or is it better to have a free market that provides for a wide range of products, from low-quality, low-priced to high-quality, high-priced?
Isn't it worse in the long run to prevent people from having access to something like what they want even if it's a cheap substitute for the real thing? There are Revo sunglasses you buy in a store for $250, and there are sunglasses that look like Revos but don't have the high quality production values or lenses that the $250 ones do -- but the ones on the street cost $5. Should the $5 glasses be outlawed (not taking into account trademark issues for this analogy) just because they're poor quality?
Among other things, even though you and I might be able to spot fake Fubu a mile away or a fake Chanel bag or whatever, by outlawing the cheap rip off, wouldn't you be intensifying class boundaries?