> That is why we have the FDA etc, and that is why doctors are rigorously vetted and trained through the med school/residency process, and I think most people w

> That is why we have the FDA etc, and that is why doctors are rigorously vetted and trained through the med school/residency process, and I think most people would agree that that is a good thing. I can imagine a world where it's sufficient to see that physician X is certified by Harvard and works for a clinic that's recommended by Consumer Reports without any involvement from the state. In this scenario the FDA would still exist as a competing organization but no one would be compelled to buy their product via taxation. > Of course we all know that charity will never come close to providing for the entirety of society Ostensibly, we've all voted for compulsory charity. If we can be trusted to vote so nobly, why not put down the guns and self-elect to be charitable? > I want to be able to go to a restaurant without being terrified of catching TB from the waiter or getting salmonella poisoning from the food I agree and I don't think I'd lose any libertarian cred to say that the government does have a role here because the restaurant has defrauded you and breached the implicit contract to provide you with safe food. > I don't want industrial companies polluting the ocean and rivers that I surf and fish in. I think property rights solve a lot of these things--"Oh, they polluted some river..." vs. "They polluted MY river?!" . I can concede that things like oceans and larger rivers should not be privately held but in these cases I'd prefer local government jurisdiction to federal/global governments. Essentially, the more aggregate the government, the more deliberate/unintrusive/restrained/super-majoritized I think it should be. In my mind, health-care is not one such federal issue.