bit hard for the rival regulator to deny it if they've been denied access to the premises.You do know regulatory agencies are funded not just by providing a service right? And let's say they are for-profit. What is your point? That they can be influenced? Sure, but in the end they're in competition. Once they approve something and it causes harm - especially if a rival regulator has denied it - their repute plumets.
how much do you actually know about how markets work?Why are you assuming there would one or their would ultimately be a monopoly? You've gone from 1 to 5 with little understanding in what is being said.
prone yes. guaranteed regulatory capture? **** no. fda ain't perfect, what you're suggesting is far worse.Moreover, let's take that as the worst case scenario. It is still better than having a public body. The same body is prone to the same perversions.
indeed, and they will have far less incentive for capture because they do not require profit to survive. what they require is adherence to the laws of the land as decided by the elective representatives of the people.What is worse, however, is that a public body will remain indefinitely due to the monopoly position it has garnered through force - through legal means and funding through government. Or that it will ruin it's reputation and be re-built again as renamed body, still funding through government.
In a private framework that regulatory body is always at the mercy of competition - even if it takes that competition 100 years to get to a place to economically worry the rival and perverse body. But it is still much better because it has the possibility of doing that. Whereas the government gives you no possibility of doing that.
I explained this to you before in the FDA and it seemed you understood and accepted it then. The same principle applies.even if it takes that competition 100 years to get to a place to economically worry the rival and perverse body.if it takes that competition 100 yearsREAL ****ING WORLD.100 years
as for the rest... you're treating a completely hypothetical, probably impossible situation of "market perfection" as a basis to adopt a system which will probably lead to lower quality standards and result in how ever many needless deaths?
good luck with that.
don't presume to ****ing judge me on the same self-centered scale as you. i'm perfectly aware that my taxes are keeping other people alive. and am perfectly happy to pay them. i expect the same in return and will NEVER apologise for it.So, you are definitively irresponsible. You do want others to chip in. The problem with this mentality is that it forgets that you also have to chip in for others.
you want a society that neither requires you to contribute to the well-being of its citizens and does not contribute to yours in return? move to ****ing somalia.
where is this person who has no need for food?Moreover, you forget some people don't want to have to pay for something you want because they have no need for it. And when such a thing is publicly funded it inevitably ratchets up in cost because of the waste of such a bureaucracy.
so they can actually stay alive.If such a thing is viable financially, then you and the people who think like you should use your own initiatives to pool your resources and buy what you want for the greater good. If it doesn't, why do you have to drag everyone with you?
lol. spare us the cassandra tripe.As I said, this is the most reprehensible mindset I can thing of. It is a testament to our indoctrination as citizens that we not only have this mindset prevalent, but we feel ENTITLED to it and if someone points it out we get angry at them for not living in their world.
oh, so it's not competition that will ensure that this magic uncaptured private regulatory body does its job, it's the courts! what a fascinating insight. so tell us: if my child is given toxic baby formula and dies, does it make me an irresponsible, entitled parent to take the company to court and sue their ****ing guts out? after all, i'm assuming that my baby was erroneuously entitled to not die. the company has no legal obligation to provide my child with safe baby formula, however. what a terrible person i must be!Haha, but that is what I have been saying all along. My question is, why shouldn't there be a regulatory body - other than the courts (which is what I have been promoting for food business violations, so don't argue that to me)? Are mechanics subject to stringent checks? When they sell you a car part, is there an overview of prices they must adhere to? Does a regulatory body shut them down if they don't use the right part?