Ofc, if you believe in the free market, then n=1 calculations will naturally sort themselves out for the most part to the eventual and overall benefit of everyo

Ofc, if you believe in the free market, then n=1 calculations will naturally sort themselves out for the most part to the eventual and overall benefit of everyone, better and more efficiently than what the relatively slow-changing government will achieve except in very particular cases. And while you can still find death traps, they're now even deadlier than before because the market still exists for them, but now you can only obtain 10, 20 year old death traps, after regulation instantiates. And ofc the point of regulation is that eventually all death traps leave the used market too, and there's simply nothing at all left to serve this market. Regulation intentionally kills the market being served; ideally for longer-term macro-level benefits. Safety is not free. And governments are not infallible in their devision-making. But neither is the free market. This is the crux of the issue; it depends on who you believe is better able to make macro-level decisions: natural markets or regulatory bodies. Safety, or whatever other hot topic of the day, is just a distraction leading people to talk past each other. and it gets further confounded by current reality vs ideal. ie there's no external costs not being accounted for with the table-saw-stopper if hospitals, insurance, etc aren't being subsidized. If individuals have to pay the whole bill for their mistake, which should naturally be true in a totally free market, then it'll all sort itself out soon enough (lest the market collapse). But since in reality various costs are being subsidized/hidden by greater forces... this doesn't hold so easily. Of course, if gov interference is the primary reason for more gov interference, then you're in a positive feedback loop that probably won't take you anywhere good.