The devil is always in the details. On this question, the devil is in the meaning of "minimal" government regulation.
My view would be that minimal regulation would still have the FDA. It might not prevent unapproved drugs from being sold, but would approve drugs as safe, after rigorous testing. So consumers could choose whether to take anapproved drugs, or not, based on the greater risk, since they hadn't been proven safe.
Some would believe that Microsoft should be broken up, and multiple operating systems forced upon the populace, to prevent monopoly by Microsoft. I believe that in the case of software, anybody, and any time, could offer a better product, and Micorsoft would go broke so fast, you'd envy Standard Oil Corp. during the depression of the thirty's. So it isn't in the public interest to break up Microsoft, because the marketplace can control its operations.
But I would suggest that some monopolies might need breaking up, to protect the public. The way to tell which ones is to watch their pricing behaviour. If they use their market share as a weapon on competitors and then jack up prices to heavy profit levels, then they might need breaking up. Maybe Microsoft has done that?
Anyway, less government is better government, until we need our government to do something for us.
__________________
Trueheart
|