| | Michael,
I have no problem with prosecution of fraud, and if it involves testing a product - fine - no problem. But that isn't the same as any of the regulatory agencies we have.
All of the regulatory agencies violate rights in ways that have nothing to do with prosecuting fraud.
No Objectivist wants to grant government a monopoly on anything but being the sole law within the jurisdiction (law enforced by force where needed). This includes things like the exercise of military force against attackers (this doesn't mean that government can't hire mercenaries, or do letters of marque or things like that - if adequately controllable - but the government declares the war and stays in charge of the effort - that is their monopoly if you want to use that word. This would include the control of any adjudication mechanism. That doesn't mean that private firms can't arise to provide this service of adjudication, but they have to do it under the umbrella of the legal structure created by the government. People can have all the private security they want, but it all must live under the laws of the land. It is really the law that is the monopoly. No one who is an Objectivist abandons the necessity of a single set of laws and a single government (as opposed to multiple governments or no government).
|
|
