> How could there not be a monopoly on public safety? Easily. Simply allow the private sector to provide the services currently under the exclusive domain of t

> How could there not be a monopoly on public safety? Easily. Simply allow the private sector to provide the services currently under the exclusive domain of the FDA, for example. > Trusting private corporations or companies with public safety is insane. I agree 100%. However, companies are not in a position to provide public safety anyway. It's consumers who make up the public, through their choices, who provide for the public safety. They are perfectly capable of being safe without needing the government to interfere in their affairs. > You know, instead of reforming it or fixing the problems we have. What's really sad here is the belief that if only we had smarter experts in Washington D.C. they could make the perfect set of rules to regulate everyone's lives, and we would not have any problems. This is utterly naive, and is quite impossible in practice. No matter how smart an expert is, they simply can't know enough to make the optimal balance for you or me. They don't know anything about my life, so how could they evaluate all the trade-offs to make optimal choices for me? There are just too many variables and life is too dynamic. This is exactly why free markets are great, they provide the distributed feedback that democracy can't. Individuals are free to choose the services and goods that provide the most value, and collectively these preference signals propagate through the market to guide producers, who are in turn free to innovate and create new services they think I will prefer. This "invisible hand" guides the interactions of millions of people across the globe, but it requires freedom. Wherever there is a free market we see innovation and prosperity. The evidence is all around you.