Is it a proof of government inefficiency at fighting fraud? Or a call for more regulation? We would never know that until people are allowed to decide for them

Is it a proof of government inefficiency at fighting fraud? Or a call for more regulation? We would never know that until people are allowed to decide for themselves how they want to protect themselves. Right now we have two problems: 1) we are forced to allocate huge amounts of money for various "protection" of dubious quality, so we don't have much money left for extra protection that we ourselves may choose; 2) various business models that might explore alternative ways to protect people are either prohibited or kept away from existing monopoly markets protected by the state. In short: while there are state guns, we cannot know if they do us any good. And I very much suspect that any person who constantly coerces you "for your own good" without a good proof is always an evil sadist. (Parents may force children to take a medicine because they can then demonstrate that it was actually helping. Like you may drag me by force from under a running bus and then tell me why you did it. But constant abuse without a proof and religious brainwashing is pure sadism.)