Case from 1950, FDA was founded in 1906, so this is an argument against not for. Since the FDA was not able to do it's job.

When did that happen?

It happens all the time, you just don't hear about it.

"a few bad men" = a profit focussed industry that will try and get away with as much naughtiness as possible. And even if they're weren't naughty we'd need to do all the tests anyway in case they were accidently producing unsafe or ineffective drugs.

Nothing wrong with profit. And exploitation can only happen for so long, until people move away from that company. So if for instance Microsoft was exploiting it's customers, they would move to Apple. Microsoft would have to stop in order to survive.

Yes you did.

No, I said I can imagine you want protection from the same institution that is demanding from you to make a lot of costs.

Companies A and B each have £1 billion. Company A spends that on research for a new product (estimated market £1 billion)(let's say they develop a new material that combats current leakage in transistors). Company B does nothing. At the end of the research Company A have £0 and Company B have £1 billion. Company A start to sell the product, company B copies it. Company B has £1 billion left for a massive marketting campaign and gains 90 % of the market share. Company B is left with lots of money, Company A goes bankrupt. You create a climate where innovating is not economically sensible.

Then company A made a terrible investment decision, researching a product that could be copied so easily. And how would B know, that A's idea is worth copying? It would first have to become a success. Then A would end up with 90% market share and B with 10%, B would then have to get the product to market, use up it's billion dollars to catch up, while A already releases a new version. B would constantly trail behind A.

Imagine this, company A still spends it's billion, but government awards the patent to company B. Now company A is prohibited from even entering the marketplace.

I don't see any concrete example in that link.

Let's take airbags for example. Cars have had airbags long before they were made compulsory. Same with safer fuel tanks.

People should be able to decide for themselves how safe their car should be. Just not the issues that can harm other parties. That's why I totally agree with things like; minimum stopping distance, turn signals, brake lights, etc. etc.

Government cannot come up with rules, just not with solutions. It has never provided one and on the occasion when they did pick one, they are often wrong. They are politically motivated, not motivated to pick the right solution.

I don't really see how you can seperate those...

The spirit of the law is something entirely different then the real world implication.

That's what is wrong with our current mindset, we focus too much on spirit and too little on real world implication. That's why we push for agendas that sound nice, but have a devastating impact. We need more common sense.