Have I misunderstood Libertarianism?

[Eilonnwy]

By the people, and in turn balanced by the watchdog groups. The people want their food to be safe, the watchdog groups make sure the companies are producing food to a good standard, and warn the people if it is not.

Additionally, I've already said how the laws of society are not escaped by business. If someone eats bad food that was sold by a company, that company is liable. One of the government's responsibilities is to protect life.

That just breaks my brain with stupid.

1) By your statement, bad food will still be out there ready to be sold. It's nigh impossible to get information to everyone, so it's inevitable that someone would still eat this bad food. The FDA prevents it from ever getting into circulation.

2) So basically, someone has to get sick, potentially sick and die, for a lawsuit to change the way that company does business. Let's not forget that big companies have more money for lawsuits than the average Joe Schmoe who had the misfortune of eating bad food. The FDA would try to prevent that food getting into the population, and if it did, the FDA would has far more resources to make the company pay than an average person.

Once again proving that libertarianism is nothing but supremely idealistic notions that ignore the propensity of businesses and companies to try and cheat the average person to make a buck.

If regular market forces worked without regulation, I'd accept that. They don't. The banks failed because of continued de-regulation. That's just a fact.