Comment Re:Critical thinking. (Score 1) 676
The fact is a large part of the population isn't that smart and needs protection or they'll be taken advantage of.
So they have smarter and much better informed and educated people protect them.
I agree with your comment, but wouldn't phrase this in this way. Instead, I'd say that most people have limited time and resources to find out what's in everything they eat, drink, or use. Suppose all product safety laws were repealed tomorrow and companies needed to rely on people trusting that their product was what they said it was. How much would you be able to verify? Could you verify that the drugs you purchased to treat a medical condition (everything from current OTC medication like aspirin to current prescription medication) was actually safe, effective, and contained what it said it did? How would you even verify that the ibuprofen you purchased had ibuprofen in it and wasn't just sugar pills or some opioid instead?
Furthermore, since this would apply to all products, could you verify that the bread, eggs, milk, and other groceries you purchased were safe to eat and contained what they said they did? Even if a person spent every single hour of the day, I doubt they could verify half of the stuff they use on a daily basis. So we outsource it to the government and trust that they will ensure that the items are safe, effective, and contain what they claim to contain. Is it a perfect system? Definitely not, but it's better than "let companies do whatever they want and require customers to verify that the companies are being honest."