> What's stopping these "private analogs to the FDA" from existing now? If the FDA is doing such a poor job of protecting our food, why isn't private industry stepping up to the plate?
What's stopping them is the fact that there is a much stronger body that already has an anointed legitimacy. The "market opportunity" for doing this is gone if the government is already doing it, and on top of that is the final say on the matter (they after all do get to take things off the market).
> These problems happen because the FDA is too much in bed with the private industries they're supposed to be regulating. What needs to be done is to make them more independent from those private industries, and strengthen the FDA
Should we do this before or after we make bank regulators more independent from the banks? Or before or after we make the military committees in congress more independent from the military contractors? Are you beginning to see a pattern here? Go into more or less any government agency that interacts with industry and you'll find them in bed. Its easy to say things "should" be more independent, but its hard to actually accomplish it. One reason, again, is because its hard to hold anyone liable for anything in government (who polices the police?). After all, its already the case that in theory the FDA, composed of "non-political" scientists is already supposed to be 100% independent. How exactly do you propose making them more independent? Mind you, giving them more power does not make them independent, it just makes their decisions harder to fight against (which can work against you if for example they rule against a small company since it is in the interests of a big company). Again, the "libertarian" point here is that there is no real incentive for them to do a good job. We have to rely on them wanting to be "good people" and make the right decision. Because if they make a bad decision, there are no negative consequences since there is no competition: they certainly wouldn't lose their right to decide things, whereas making a wrong decision in a private market could be devastating as no one would trust them anymore.
> not to get rid of the FDA and replace them with some pipe dream that only works in some libertarian utopia.
Please stop referring to these proposals as "pipe dreams" of "utopias", it is a really shallow straw man. No is arguing that things would be perfect, it is simply an alternative idea that some people believe would be better, but no rational person thinks would be completely without issue (just like you think the current system is better, but clearly has issues as well -- there is no perfect answer). The most important thing to realize is that by discussing these opposing viewpoints in a respectful manner, you might actually gain ideas about how to improve your own system (for example it might give you inspiration for a way to truly make the FDA independent, which I agree would be great).
What's stopping them is the fact that there is a much stronger body that already has an anointed legitimacy. The "market opportunity" for doing this is gone if the government is already doing it, and on top of that is the final say on the matter (they after all do get to take things off the market).
> These problems happen because the FDA is too much in bed with the private industries they're supposed to be regulating. What needs to be done is to make them more independent from those private industries, and strengthen the FDA
Should we do this before or after we make bank regulators more independent from the banks? Or before or after we make the military committees in congress more independent from the military contractors? Are you beginning to see a pattern here? Go into more or less any government agency that interacts with industry and you'll find them in bed. Its easy to say things "should" be more independent, but its hard to actually accomplish it. One reason, again, is because its hard to hold anyone liable for anything in government (who polices the police?). After all, its already the case that in theory the FDA, composed of "non-political" scientists is already supposed to be 100% independent. How exactly do you propose making them more independent? Mind you, giving them more power does not make them independent, it just makes their decisions harder to fight against (which can work against you if for example they rule against a small company since it is in the interests of a big company). Again, the "libertarian" point here is that there is no real incentive for them to do a good job. We have to rely on them wanting to be "good people" and make the right decision. Because if they make a bad decision, there are no negative consequences since there is no competition: they certainly wouldn't lose their right to decide things, whereas making a wrong decision in a private market could be devastating as no one would trust them anymore.
> not to get rid of the FDA and replace them with some pipe dream that only works in some libertarian utopia.
Please stop referring to these proposals as "pipe dreams" of "utopias", it is a really shallow straw man. No is arguing that things would be perfect, it is simply an alternative idea that some people believe would be better, but no rational person thinks would be completely without issue (just like you think the current system is better, but clearly has issues as well -- there is no perfect answer). The most important thing to realize is that by discussing these opposing viewpoints in a respectful manner, you might actually gain ideas about how to improve your own system (for example it might give you inspiration for a way to truly make the FDA independent, which I agree would be great).