> In a true free market, you wouldn't have a liability shield and would face severe consequences for putting out dangerous products.
Liability for defective (whether through malice, negligence, or in some cases on a strict liability basis) products is government intervention in the marketplace, and is specifically designed to address one of the ways that reality does not align with the presuppositions under which an unregulated "free market" is ideal, to wit, that people generally do not, in fact, act with perfect knowledge of the outcomes of economic decisions when they engage in them.
It is no different than many other government interventions in the marketplace in its basis.
> And also, the FDA is not some magic fairy dust that will shield you from bad products. Mountain Dew still has BVO in it, for example.
That does not mean that its approval procedures (and procedures for reviewing products already on the market) do not have utility in providing clearer information on products within its regulatory domain and helping consumers avoid bad products.
Liability for defective (whether through malice, negligence, or in some cases on a strict liability basis) products is government intervention in the marketplace, and is specifically designed to address one of the ways that reality does not align with the presuppositions under which an unregulated "free market" is ideal, to wit, that people generally do not, in fact, act with perfect knowledge of the outcomes of economic decisions when they engage in them.
It is no different than many other government interventions in the marketplace in its basis.
> And also, the FDA is not some magic fairy dust that will shield you from bad products. Mountain Dew still has BVO in it, for example.
That does not mean that its approval procedures (and procedures for reviewing products already on the market) do not have utility in providing clearer information on products within its regulatory domain and helping consumers avoid bad products.