As I said, this is a very complex issue, I can't hope to address all your points here but let me try to address an important one.
You are equating science with government enforcement of majority opinion. Think back to the time of Galileo. Why would you want to make this equation?
You want to think that times are different now, that the majority is wiser than it used to be. Why should that be so, exactly?
Imagine that leaders in the software industry could prescribe what languages were "safe" and what weren't. Imagine what that would do to innovation. Isn't it better to let people decide for themselves?
You fear that lack of regulation would lead to unnecessary harm and death. Yet, what of those who are intelligent enough to know the risks and wish to try new things, knowing the possible consequences? What of the cancer patient who is sure to die in 3 months, who wants to try a new experimental drug, but is legally barred from doing so? How can you justify this tyranny?
You wish to protect the ignorant from their own bad choices, but does this make them more intelligent or less? And what of those who are smarter than you, who know better than you, and who you have banned from doing things to help themselves? What of the future people who would have benefited from what they could have learned, that you prevented them from learning?
These are the types of questions you need to be asking yourself. You also need to stop pretending that fraud is allowed on a free market. It is not.
You are equating science with government enforcement of majority opinion. Think back to the time of Galileo. Why would you want to make this equation?
You want to think that times are different now, that the majority is wiser than it used to be. Why should that be so, exactly?
Imagine that leaders in the software industry could prescribe what languages were "safe" and what weren't. Imagine what that would do to innovation. Isn't it better to let people decide for themselves?
You fear that lack of regulation would lead to unnecessary harm and death. Yet, what of those who are intelligent enough to know the risks and wish to try new things, knowing the possible consequences? What of the cancer patient who is sure to die in 3 months, who wants to try a new experimental drug, but is legally barred from doing so? How can you justify this tyranny?
You wish to protect the ignorant from their own bad choices, but does this make them more intelligent or less? And what of those who are smarter than you, who know better than you, and who you have banned from doing things to help themselves? What of the future people who would have benefited from what they could have learned, that you prevented them from learning?
These are the types of questions you need to be asking yourself. You also need to stop pretending that fraud is allowed on a free market. It is not.