It means you can sue for product liability under common law. Negligence, breach of warranty, or strict liability, depending on jurisdiction. Court decides after harm.
Fun fact about the common law in fact is that it came into existence because the English government after the Norman conquest needed a unified theory of law for the king's courts that was distinct from manorial and canon laws. 1154 Henry 2 the Plantagenet ascended the throne and wanted a code of law that would apply everywhere in the realm as opposed to local laws, the aforementioned manorial laws, as well as being secular, unlike canon law.
So without the government, you wouldn't have this common law your legal theory relies on.
Oh, that's if it wasn't actually a shell company in the first place that has no assets.
A good portion of the things you mention existed before we had food regulations, you could sue the business if you had issues with them. The problem is the vast portion of the population is far too poor to do that. Regulations stop the harm before it happens.
As I said earlier in this thread:
> Determining the best means of applying the principle of suing corporations in practice is an very complex question that belongs to the philosophy of law.
Ah yes, the school of theory that says it's better to clean up the spilled milk after its been contaminated with uranium waste.
Further, the principle doesn’t deny retaliating in advance when violence can be objectively anticipated.
Add to that a company can cause a trillion dollars of damage while having only a billion dollars on hand. Criminal charges don't fix things, if they did there wouldn't be murderers in jail.
The... government?
If this vested power remains unchecked and unlimited, the government will violate the rights of its own citizens. That's why we should limit its power to retaliatory use.
Standardization is a very valuable asset, I don't deny that. But:
1. Standardization is not limited to forced standardization;
2. It's better to live in a world not fully standardized than to accept the premise that it's right to violate rights for a good cause. The "good cause" shifts the question from "should rights be violated?" to "what kind of violation do you want?" Once we accept that, we lose to totalitarianism. A man who says "let's violate a tiny fraction of rights" would lose to a man who declares "let's violate rights of thousands."
How do you account for the right to clean water and sanitation [0] without state infrastructure, just as an example?
It feels like you care a lot about violence and force, at the expense of (imo) more important issues societies face.
[0] https://www.unwater.org/water-facts/human-rights-water-and-s...
Trying to wield sacrifices at the point of a gun (by an official or legislator) is the most important and disturbing modern issue. It paves the road to all actual social conflicts, unrest, and misunderstanding.
And it's unjust to assume humanity wouldn't help unless forced to.
By calling upon sacrifices, the first target would be engineers, plumbers, and utility workers. Forcing the people who actually produce and deliver clean water isn't justice.
Punishing and preventing it is the core purpose of the state.