I'd like to note that you've disregarded my main point, that reputation serves as a fine solution to problems of trust. > Government is not 'in your way' - it'

I'd like to note that you've disregarded my main point, that reputation serves as a fine solution to problems of trust. > Government is not 'in your way' - it's 'your government'. Government is in my was as soon as it prevents me from peacefully doing something/transacting with someone. If I want to take a loan and would only qualify at a rate deemed "predatory", it may still be in my interest to do so. If I want to pursue experimental, unregulated treatment for an ailment, it may still be in my interest to do so. Aside from that, if I want to sell my kidneys, take heroin, or eat rat poison, who else has the right to tell me that I can't? Who can claim more ownership over my own person than I? > Do you have a medical research team that can research every drug you take to the full extent? > Do you have an auto safety team that can research and test drive every car you buy? I don't need to, all I need is to trust a reputable provider of these goods/services. Auto safety ratings for instance are perfectly provided by the IIHS, a reputable, independent nonprofit. We don't need government to solve trust problems. > there is now way of determining what quackery is I couldn't disagree more. Academic and medical reputation is can can continue to be the driving force for integrity in healthcare and medical science, much as it is in non-medical science. > "Can you prove to me that Biden and Xi are not the same person?!? How do you know for sure!?" Well today I can be reasonably certain, but how long do you think that certainty will last? 100 years? 1000? 10,000? At some point it will be akin to asking "How do we know Jesus was a real person?", which is rather a valid question don't you think?