Regulatory bodies were invented after it became apparent no one can trust private industry to act in the best interests of the public. The FDA was invented because blue milk was being mixed with wall plaster and sold anyway.
The onus, now, is to prove your product is safe. Not that it doesn't contain wall plaster. You have to prove you've taken precautions against deleterious outcomes at the outset.
And that's the problem you're not addressing: how, in providing legal advice, does a new player enter the game? And what do you do if everyone in it is actually really bad at what they do, but see no money in improving it?
You've managed to say "well the system as it is kind of works that way" and so your conclusion is "hey, let's strip away some protections, and definitely stop trying to think ahead about what outcomes we're trying to achieve."
Because you know, what could go wrong? Just hope you're not in the "learner experience" losses I guess. You sign up for unlicensed drug trials right?
> Regulatory bodies were invented after it became apparent no one can trust private industry to act in the best interests of the public.
Perhaps, but by now it should be apparent that no one can trust regulatory bodies to act in the best interests of the public either.
> And that's the problem you're not addressing: how, in providing legal advice, does a new player enter the game? And what do you do if everyone in it is actually really bad at what they do, but see no money in improving it?
How do things work now, in industries that are less regulated (like babysitting), or even in industries that are highly regulated (like restaurants)? I'm not an entrepreneur or a businessperson, so I don't really know, but I suspect that if I wanted to offer legal advice for a living, I would attempt to get statements from well-regarded individuals or organizations (perhaps experienced lawyers, or law schools) affirming my ability. I would use those statements to advertise my services. This is just a guess, based on what inexperienced lawyers already do in our current system.
> your conclusion is "hey, let's strip away some protections, and definitely stop trying to think ahead about what outcomes we're trying to achieve."
No, my solution is to strip away political authority, and with it the possibility of regulatory capture, a drawback which I think far outweighs the benefits.
> Just hope you're not in the "learner experience" losses I guess.
I've been to several bad restaurants, but my reaction is to give them a poor review rather than to wish for the government to ban them.
> You sign up for unlicensed drug trials right?
I don't sign up for any drug trials, but I might if there was an illegal drug I thought was necessary for my health but which was banned by regulatory agencies. And that has actually happened with the FDA.
The onus, now, is to prove your product is safe. Not that it doesn't contain wall plaster. You have to prove you've taken precautions against deleterious outcomes at the outset.
And that's the problem you're not addressing: how, in providing legal advice, does a new player enter the game? And what do you do if everyone in it is actually really bad at what they do, but see no money in improving it?
You've managed to say "well the system as it is kind of works that way" and so your conclusion is "hey, let's strip away some protections, and definitely stop trying to think ahead about what outcomes we're trying to achieve."
Because you know, what could go wrong? Just hope you're not in the "learner experience" losses I guess. You sign up for unlicensed drug trials right?