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).
Michael you are going completely off topic on a tangent that makes no sense whatsoever, people selling themselves into slavery in china has nothing to do with the war on drugs in the united states.
While I for one understand the fear most people may have when it comes to drug users "running rampant and causing chaos in society if drugs were legalized" what I am attempting to show you is a practical objectivist viewpoint how to actually win the war on drugs. Your arguments presented thus far are so seriously flawed that I find it hard to believe you have even read anything by Ayn Rand never mind actually understanding what she had to say.
In case you have not noticed drug users are already causing some very real chaos in society by the crimes they are committing in order to pay for their illicit drug use.
I have attempted to present my case in fairly easy to understand basic terms as well as very easily verified facts.
As far as I know this is an objectivist site and so have presented this from an objectivist view point to the best of my own ability to understand that philosophy.
I also understand that I am new to this site and if I were to write something way off base there are many VERY SHARP minds that would tell me to engage my brain before spewing irrational garbage.
If my case is flawed from an objectivist view I would encourage Ed or any other brilliant mind including you Steve and Fred to steer me in the right direction.
I also understand that this topic is not a pretty one but a very real problematic black sheep that many may agree or disagree with but for their own reasons may wish to not touch with a ten foot pole.
I for one see this as a battle for survival of freedom to still be able to speak up when a government slowly erodes the very foundations of freedom that america was founded on.
You michael attempted to use illogical presumptions..arsenic as a sexual stimulant? Last I heard there was this little blue pill...
In a true capitalist society people have the right to buy and sell ANYTHING as long as they do not use fraud, coercion, initiation of force or theft.
Let an individual, a business or a huge corporation succeed or fail based upon their own ability to perceive reality or not do so. That includes what they choose to put or not put in their own bodies.
If an individual engages in activity or belief system that does not or will not recognize objective reality he will succeed or fail based upon how much or how little he is able to do so.
It is not the roll of government to guarantee your success only the right to make the attempt.