> About food regulations; if a product uses dangerous chemicals (for example), in a proper free market, that should give alternative products a competitive adva

> About food regulations; if a product uses dangerous chemicals (for example), in a proper free market, that should give alternative products a competitive advantage. Incredible. Do you really believe it's possible to make a safe food market without regulations? > Regulations exist to prevent abuse. If companies couldn't get away with abusing their customers (without going bankrupt), we wouldn't need regulations in the first place. What on Earth will make a company selling, fake protein, which is actually poisonous melamine, to go out of business? They got paid before anyone ate the poisoned food, and really, there are no regulations, so what are you suing them for? What did they do wrong? Must you trust a large, well marketed brand name or else worry about fly-by-night manufacturers making a quick buck on adultered goods and then dissapearing? Are trademark regulations still enforced in this "no regulations" world or if the counterfeit is close enough that you can't tell the difference then caveat emptor? Every libertarian secretly _loves_ regulations, as long as they get to choose which. "Enforce property rights because I have property" or "Enforce nothing because I already have guns and that makes me the enforcer". It's not a coherant ideology.