I anticipated a cherry pick and a different context. I was going to add that when a crime is committed or there is a court case, the gov't can demand information, etc. but didn't think it was necessary. I should know better by now
It wasnt a cherrypick. Your definition of rights is incomplete and only an opinion as you well know.
You started about Locke and natural rights, not me.
You cant isolate negative rights and then claim positive rights dont exist.
Well, you can (because you obviously tried it) but there are so many exceptions then to your theory it simply isnt valid anymore.
For the second time in this thread you fail to distinguish between opinion and facts.
You apparently believe that positive rights shouldnt exist, which is part of your way of looking at the world.,
That's perfectly fine, but it is obviously not my way of looking at the world and its also not the way the big consumer organisations worldwide look at things..
There is no end to 'correcting legislation' that should not have been passed in the first place. That's, as I stated, how the solution becomes greater than the problem. As far as products that cause harm (not junk science or what some 'organic foodies' think harm is) that's a different story, obviously. Those selling harmful products should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.
All the above is your opinion, and just that.
I see we have a very deep difference of opinion about society and consumer rights. Thats perfectly fine.
I rather have those correcting regulations than the wild west economy/ society we had ages ago. In fact if we had been a bit more aggresive with correcting regulations we wouldnt have had this economic/ banking crisis we have had.
Take away any positieve rights consumers have , take away correcting regulations and voila, 7 years of economic misery.
Oh thats right, we dont regulate,we bail out.

And I'd rather not wait passively as a consumer without rights, buy something harmful, use it, die and then have my next of kin prosecute to the fullest extent if you dont mind.

There are consumer rights and they are positive rights in that they do demand actions.
I'd also point out that after the mandatory 15 labels that are on ladders (that no one reads), people still fall off ladders and there's always a trial lawyer available - one result of which would be another label.
Damn right, lets get rid of those labels then shall we. Lets go back 100 years in time, throw away all progress and be at the mercy of
producers and sellers, who dont give a rat's ... about our health and safety.
Maybe we should ask them politely if we can please be allowed to buy from them?
No thanks.
Btw, Im still not asking for government regulation. Consumer rights dont have to be enforced by a government. They're also a way of thinking/ acting from individuals or groups of consumers.
Its a mentality (which is sorely lacking from some posters on this mb): we buy, we have power.
There's also something called consumer activism in which consumers try to enforce their rights.
Hey kinda like how vapers are standing up for vaping.
