From Economic Irresponsibility to Political Irresponsibility: Toward Universal Apoliticism

Naturally, there are instances of responsible supply, most often found within local craftsmanship and grassroots civil society organizations. However, once supply scales to regional, national, or international levels, irresponsibility tends to prevail. What does this reveal? One might recall the infamous “mad cow” crisis, during which cattle were fed with protein from carcasses, leading to public health scandals akin to those involving eggs, milk, or poultry in the United States.

It was in this context that the notion of “irresponsible supply” was coined —particularly after an industry representative reportedly stated: “Consumers wanted cheap filet of beef, so we tried to deliver.” This line of reasoning shifts responsibility squarely onto demand, implicitly absolving producers of ethical accountability.

Limiting the consequences of irresponsibility

In recent years, we’ve seen numerous regulations against dangerous abuses. For example, the banning of certain gases used in aerosols (deodorant cans, air fresheners, etc.), notably chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), with discussions from 1987¹ to 2000², which were eventually replaced by other substances (hydrocarbons: butane, propane, isobutane or compressed gases: nitrogen, carbon dioxide), with no destructive effects on the ozone layer.

And, of course, many other regulations had to be imposed on manufacturers: bans on hazardous substances (lead, mercury, cadmium, etc.) in electronic equipment (RoHS, 2003) or in construction (asbestos, flammable aluminum-polyethylene composite panels³), demonstration of the harmlessness of chemical substances before marketing (REACH, 2006), limits on pollutant emissions (Nox, CO, fine particles) (Euro 1 to Euro 7), rules on the storage and handling of hazardous substances in factories (Seveso), ban on microplastics and single-use plastics (2021) – pending a restriction on plastic microbeads in cosmetics -, reduction of fluorinated greenhouse gases in refrigeration and air-conditioning (F-Gas, 2024), and so on.

In the agri-food sector, where health safety, the environment and now ethics are at stake, a great deal of effort has been required. In 2002, all foodstuffs were required to be traceable – with the need for a European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) – and a Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) method was introduced throughout the agri-food chain, bans on substances such as growth hormones in livestock breeding (since 1981) or antibiotics as growth promoters (2006), bans on certain pesticides such as chlorpyrifos (2020) or GMOs (above 0.9%), mandatory hygiene measures (2004-2005), mandatory labelling of nanomaterials (INCO, 2011), bans on single-use plastics (2021), etc. In addition, we will try to limit advertising aimed at children (sweet, fatty, salty products) and prevent health claims without validated scientific evidence.

With regard to labeling and transparency obligations (INCO, 2011), and simple incentives (Nutri-Score, 2017)⁴ we have directly transferred responsibility to the consumer: it’s up to him to read the labels and, if he can, avoid the unhealthy products on the market.

The advent of “free of…” products confirms the irresponsibility of supply.

Certainly, progress has been made with all the “sans…” products now on offer, but we shudder to think that they were previously sold irresponsibly.

These “sans…” products have become plentiful:

• Free of allergens (regulated) and irritants:
• gluten-free (for intolerant, celiac or sensitive consumers),
• lactose-free,
• Egg-free: often associated with allergies or vegan diets,
• nut / peanut free: severe allergies,
• soy-free / sesame-free / shellfish-free.

– No sugar or fat:

• no added sugar (natural sugars only),
• sugar-free (≤ 0.5 g of sugars per 100 g or 100 ml),
• no artificial sweeteners (aspartame, sucralose…),
• fat-free (≤ 0.5 g fat/100 g),
• trans-fat free (partially hydrogenated fats),
• Palm oil-free (for environmental reasons in particular).

– No additives or residues:

• preservative-free,
• no artificial colorants,
• no artificial flavours,
• no added nitrites or nitrates (charcuterie),
• GMO-free,
• pesticide-free (usually limited to organic).

– No animal products:

• without meat or fish,
• dairy-free,
• egg-free (“vegan”)

– Other common claims:

• alcohol-free,
• caffeine-free,
• no added salt,
• sulfite-free (wine, dried fruit)

Of course, they are also abundant outside of food:

– Cosmetics and personal care (Controversial or allergenic ingredients) :

• paraben-free (preservatives suspected of endocrine effects),
• phenoxyethanol-free (preservative irritating or toxic in high doses),
• phthalate-free (endocrine disruptors in fragrances),
• Silicone-free (occlusive, criticized in hair care and sensitive skin),
• sulfate-free (aggressive surfactants such as SLS and SLES in shampoos),
• formaldehyde-free or formaldehyde-releasing (carcinogenic),
• free of mineral oils (derived from petroleum, sometimes accused of blocking pores),
• Alcohol-free (sensitive or dry skin),
• Fragrance-free or free of fragrance allergens (skin reactions),
• no artificial colorants.
• talc-free (powders and deodorants).

– Hygiene and care, starting with household products and detergents:

• chlorine- and bleach-free (environmental),
• ammonia-free,
• phosphate-free (prohibited water pollutants),
• without optical brighteners (visual effect of detergents),
• allergen-free.

– but also textiles & clothing

• no azo dyes (carcinogenic),
• formaldehyde-free (“crease-resistant” or “stain-resistant” finishes),
• free of heavy metals (dye residues or treatments),
• PFC-free (perfluorocarbons in waterproofing),
• without synthetic fibers (100% natural products).

– and not forgetting babies and special care

• Bisphenol A-free, BPA (an endocrine-disrupting plasticizer used in baby bottles),
• latex-free (allergenic),
• soap-free (superfatted care for sensitive skin).
• nanoparticle-free (sunscreens).

These ever-expanding lists—which one must parse to fully grasp the extent of the damage caused in the past (and still ongoing for those who, for various reasons, are unable to read product labels or lack access to necessary resources)—seem to confirm the intrinsic irresponsibility of supply. This is especially true given that so-called “repair” efforts are, with rare exceptions (e.g., legal action), never retroactive. With increasingly detailed labeling, responsibility for consumption is unambiguously shifted onto the consumer.

In the realm of information dissemination—especially misinformation—it would appear relatively straightforward for digital platforms to require verifiable identities for users, whether individuals or organizations, and to impose guarantees or bonds proportional to the reach of their content. Yet here again, what prevails is a near-total absence of accountability.

If we envision a world in which the burden of responsibility for what is sold or disseminated genuinely rests with the producers—whether of goods or information—we hold the key to a profound transformation of the world. There can be no freedom without responsibility. This idea is not new. We find it echoed in Sartre⁵, in Camus⁶, in Churchill⁷, and in Arendt⁸.

Efforts to empower the business community

To say that the economic order is grounded in greed is nothing new and rather banal; yet one of the key drivers of its expansion appears to be, unequivocally, its irresponsibility. If there is demand, it is deemed legitimate to meet it—albeit with occasional ethical caveats, which are more the exception than the rule.

The recent emphasis on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) once again reveals the modesty of efforts to regulate economic excesses. With its unmistakable air of moral rectitude, CSR urges companies to avoid child labor and forced labor, to protect the environment, and to combat corruption throughout their supply chains. However, unless underpinned by legal frameworks—such as France’s Duty of Vigilance Law—CSR remains voluntary and thus non-binding, primarily because it is structurally incompatible with the profit-maximization imperative. Depending on shareholders’ ethical sensitivity, CSR may be transformative—but more frequently, it is merely cosmetic.

Can individuals—consumers—resist abusive corporate practices? The answer is, realistically, no. Those who have tried to take on banks or major institutions in court have spent decades and all their savings, rarely emerging victorious. As for boycotts…?

Politicians and legislators, protectors of irresponsible supply

French law wavers between two imperatives: the protection of freedom of expression—enshrined in the Constitution via the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, and the European Convention on Human Rights—and the prohibition of economic discrimination. According to Article 225-2 of the French Penal Code, it is a criminal offense to obstruct the normal conduct of an economic activity by calling for a boycott based on origin, nationality, or group affiliation.

This legal tension was exemplified in the prosecution of activists involved in the 2009–2010 boycott campaign against Israel. They were convicted by French courts—including a 2015 decision by the Cour de cassation—for incitement to economic discrimination. However, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) later ruled that these convictions violated the activists’ right to political expression.

Legal Summary for France:

• Individual boycotts are legal and fall under the protection of personal freedom.
• Public calls for boycotts are tolerated as long as they are not discriminatory—although in practice, most such calls may imply some form of exclusion.
• Boycotts based on national origin (e.g. targeting a country) can lead to criminal prosecution—unless they are initiated or supported by the State itself.
• Activist-led calls for boycotts, when political or ethical in nature, are increasingly protected under the European Convention on Human Rights, as reaffirmed by the ECtHR.

But what about coordinated consumer actions—such as refusing to buy from a major brand or multinational? Could this fall under the scope of collective action or even resemble a form of class action?

Group Action in French Law: Inspired by American class actions, France introduced its own version in 2014 via the Hamon Law, initially limited to consumer protection and economic damages. It was later extended to health matters (Touraine Law, 2016), and subsequently to environmental issues, discrimination, and personal data protection (2017). A project to create a universal group action has existed since 2022, but has yet to be implemented. At the European level, Directive (EU) 2020/1828 on representative actions requires Member States to adapt their legislation—a process still pending in France as of 2023.

However, very few actions have been initiated, and even fewer have succeeded. Why? Because procedures remain long, complex, and expensive, and can only be brought by approved associations, leaving citizens with limited autonomy. As a result, the deterrent effect on large corporations remains minimal.

This quasi-collusion—whether intentional or not—between the legislative sphere (the “representatives of the people”!) and the economic world calls for a closer examination of a broader phenomenon: political irresponsibility.

As soon as financial stakes are involved—particularly in matters of public finance and taxation—similar patterns of irresponsibility emerge. For instance, the 2024 activity report of Union Retraite reminds us that, in France, the right to receive a pension is not automatic, but claim-based. Those who have contributed but fail to request part of their entitlements simply forfeit them. The same logic applies to many state subsidies: although voted by lawmakers, they are only granted upon individual request—even when recipients are known to be in need.

This legalistic sleight of hand rests on the principle that “no one is supposed to ignore the law.” Yet this principle confronts a legal system of overwhelming complexity: as of today, there are 2,976 laws in force (1,000 adopted between 2003 and 2023), along with 42,895 decrees, 62,020 ministerial orders, and 1,299 ordinances—without even considering jurisprudence, which comprises over 9 million court decisions, from various jurisdictions and periods⁹.

But political irresponsibility runs even deeper. Behind the structure of the representative system—deliberately chosen over a democratic regime during the French Revolution¹⁰—the elected official is often the product of a minority of the electorate. For instance, a candidate who wins 65% of the votes cast (excluding blank and null ballots, around 7%) is in fact elected by less than one-third of eligible voters (taking into account approximately 12% unregistered citizens and 42% abstention).

This constructed legitimacy, while necessary for institutional continuity, paradoxically reinforces the irresponsibility of the representative. Officially, the elected official acts in the name of the people. A striking example of this form of representation is the management of public debt: while any private individual in France can be sentenced to prison for tax debts exceeding €1,500, the state—under the authority of the elected President—can accumulate a public debt currently reaching €3,305 billion (115% of GDP as of early 2025) without any legal accountability. Imprisoning the government is, of course, not a viable solution. Nevertheless, by the same logic, every citizen, as the ultimate bearer of that collective debt, could theoretically be held responsible.

In this light, political irresponsibility appears less like an accident of the system than its very condition of possibility.

An apolitical society

Could there be a connection between these economic and political forms of irresponsibility? The answer appears affirmative when we consider the increasing subservience of states to what is now termed “ultraliberalism” or even “anarcho-capitalism.” It is plain to see that the monopolization of power by the representative system leads inexorably to the political disengagement of citizens—non-registration, abstention, blank or null ballots.

Likewise, it is just as evident that ultraliberalism fosters a widespread depoliticization of the masses. But then, one might ask: why has this not been stated more clearly before? As recently underlined by Caëla Gillespie (Manufacture de l’homme apolitique, Le Bord de l’Eau, 2024), this phenomenon has been unfolding before our eyes for decades—its confirmation hardly needs further demonstration, yet the most recent U.S. election once again provided it in dramatic fashion (plutocratic point of view).

Could there be a link between these economic and political irresponsibilities? The rhetoric of ultraliberalism is both refined and highly effective. More than a mere “single thought” or ideological monopoly, ultraliberalism increasingly appears as an active impediment to thought itself—particularly among younger generations. By confining individuals’ horizons almost exclusively to the commercial realm, it deprives them of any alternative frame of reference.

Human beings are thus effectively reduced to their economic functions: producers of wealth and consumers of goods¹¹. They are no longer even the “homo economicus” of classical economics—a model that at least retained a semblance of human subjectivity—but mere agents, anonymized variables in economic equations, classified and valued solely by purchasing power.

He has become apolitical because nothing political remains to him—only his purchasing power and the fable of “Economic Necessity”¹². The same applies, inevitably, to the modern State, which is now besieged from all directions:

• From above (EU, Nicolo ruling¹³, art. 55 of the Constitution¹⁴;
• From below, by the relentless pressures of global commercial forces;
• From the side, by unelected and opaque transnational entities such as international financial institutions.

Thus, it is the State itself that has been rendered apolitical by the imperatives of “Economic Necessity”—that is, stripped of political agency, and therefore absolved of political responsibility, at least in relation to the economic sphere.

Conclusion

Irresponsible supply is not a peripheral anomaly; it is embedded at the very core of the system now governed by Economic Necessity. The state itself—true to its plutocratic origins—has gradually become captive to this logic of irresponsibility.

Apolitical State, apolitical inhabitants (citizens doesn’t apply anymore)—one wonders, then, who remains to reverse the tide.

Is it The Prince (1513) by Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527)—advocating the use of cunning or force, if necessary, to ensure the stability and greatness of the state—or is it the Enlightened Despot of the eighteenth century¹⁵—ruling for the good of the people, but without their consent—that current populist votes across Europe seem to long for?

Footnotes

1. Montreal Protocol to eliminate ozone-depleting substances, including CFCs.[↩]
2. Entry into force of the total ban on the marketing of products containing CFCs in the EU.[↩]
3. Banned in 2018 in the UK, but thousands of buildings are still equipped with these ACM-PE panels.[↩]
4. Optional complementary nutritional labeling, based on the goodwill of manufacturers and possible pressure from consumers.[↩]
5. “Man is condemned to be free…”, Existentialism Is a Humanism, 1946.[↩]
6. His notion of responsible and solidaristic freedom, The Rebel, 1951.[↩]
7. “The price of greatness is responsibility”, Speech to the House of Commons, 1943[↩]
8. Who, in essence, asserts that freedom implies action and thus responsibility, The Human Condition, 1958.[↩]
9. Cf. the presidents of both Assemblies and the Minister of Justice in La démocratie du futur, L’Harmattan, 2022, p. 67.[↩]
10. See La démocratie du futur, op. cit, pp. 26-30 and 58-51.[↩]
11. See, for example, Frank Mistiaen’s insightful critique: “Wealth production: an unthought-of aspect of economic theory”, published on metafysikos.com.[↩]
12. See Manufacture de l’homme apolitique, op. cit.[↩]
13. By the Nicolo ruling of the French Council of State, the administrative jurisdiction recognizes the primacy of international (and European) law over French laws, even subsequent ones.[↩]
14. This article enshrines the primacy of international treaties over French law, provided they are applied reciprocally.[↩]
15. Voltaire, for instance, admired Frederick II of Prussia and defended the idea of an enlightened monarch (Le Siècle de Louis XIV, 1751; Letter to Frederick II), believing a philosopher-king more apt to govern justly than a democratic system; Catherine II of Russia, in her Instruction to the Legislative Commission (1767), laid the foundations of Russian enlightened absolutism.[↩]