>If you did you'd realize it doesn't operate well under threats of force by bureaucracies
Isn't science itself a form of bureaucracy? Or is peer review also a "threat of force?"
>I never said anything in support of medical fraud or crackpots.
You did, though. Your original statement implied that regulation of medicine itself was the problem. There is ample evidence to suggest that quack science and chicanery would flourish in an unregulated environment, because the overriding principle would no longer be an attempt at scientific plausibility but profit. And rigor costs money.
This is one of those situations where I feel the presence of government is a net benefit over the absence of it. Whether that government is qualified or operating credibly is a different matter.
Isn't science itself a form of bureaucracy? Or is peer review also a "threat of force?"
>I never said anything in support of medical fraud or crackpots.
You did, though. Your original statement implied that regulation of medicine itself was the problem. There is ample evidence to suggest that quack science and chicanery would flourish in an unregulated environment, because the overriding principle would no longer be an attempt at scientific plausibility but profit. And rigor costs money.
This is one of those situations where I feel the presence of government is a net benefit over the absence of it. Whether that government is qualified or operating credibly is a different matter.