true laissez faire libertarianism is dangerous

Pro has the burden of proof to show that true laissez faire libertarianism is dangerous. Since all of Pro's arguments are for government intervention to prevent this danger, the implication is that laissez faire is significantly more dangerous than the status quo. However, all Pro has done is made assertions and appealed to "common sense". I'd like to address this use of the term "common sense". If I asked a dozen people a question about some controversial subject asking for "common sense" responses, I would likely get very different answers. Who would be "right"? Is Pro suggesting we have somehow come to the "end of time" when it comes to knowledge, so that currently all common sense positions are correct?Pro is in the group who agree with the statement "you can't afford prescriptions, you die" and automatically assumes that group is correct. However, no reason has been given for this. If the common sense answer to economic questions was always true, then how would we ever modify our conclusions over time? Marx's value theory of labor was considered "common sense" in 1900, but has been dismissed in modern times. "Common sense" fails us often. There are only three ways one can work to arrive at the truth of something:1) common sense 2) careful study3) a priori reasoning (first principals)Pro may use #1 if they choose. I choose to use #2 and #3. "some people can't afford to buy food, so they die"This is a childish statement. Humans have an innate desire to help others. American's donated 358$ billion to charities in 2014. http://www.nptrust.org... The total of means-tested welfare programs (programs that provide low-income assistance) in the U.S. from federal, state and local governments in 2012 was nearly 1$ trillion dollars. Now it's true that a good deal of this money is not targeted to the truly needy. But that's precisely the problem. Governments intent is not so much to help the needy as it is to buy support, so they spread the money around as much possible. Since 1965 government welfare has increased dramatically:"And, on a per capita basis, that is per poor person, federal spending has risen by more than 900 percent, from $1,625 to $14,848"http://object.cato.org...But poverty rates haven't budged. In fact, poverty rates were falling naturally prior to LBJ's Great Society: I would propose that Pro needs to show improved trends in mortality linked to starvation that correlate with the start of LBJ's great society programs starting in 1965. I think Pro will find it difficult to find examples of starvation even during the great depression. In fact, the only mortality link to the great depression was an increase in suicides. http://www.pnas.org... "people will die of disease with no healthcare"I already covered this in the last round. There is no connection between mortality and federal health care programs. How did we ever survive prior to these programs which had only begun around 1940 and didn't really kick into gear until LBJ? They survived because doctors took it upon themselves to give healthcare to the poor, especially when government programs weren't crowding out private charity."people will die of disease with no food regulations"Pro talks about people as if there are two species: one species is smart enough to regulate the thousands of drugs made by pharmacy companies, but the other is so stupid they would use a drug concocted in a friends basement. As long as people desire to take drugs to cure what ails them, there will be cases where harm is done. Take the case of Osphena, a drug intended to aid women with Vaginal dryness during menopause. There are already safe, topical solutions to this problem however Osphena carries with it much higher risks, but people just want to pop a pill to solve a problem. https://drjengunter.wordpress.com... The question is how we organize business and law in order to minimize the problem. The FDA has a monopoly on the task of approving drugs in the U.S. This monopoly privilege has severe negative consequences. In the last round I showed the FDA was not only negligent, they also refuse to accept responsibility for their failure. You can't sue the FDA. Former FDA chief counsel Richard Merrill:"No FDA official has ever been publicly criticized for refusing to allow the marketing of a drug." http://fee.org...Another problem is that the FDA's incentives are to limit access to new drugs. The FDA makes no money on the drugs it approves, so it makes no difference to them how long the approval process takes. Physician Henry I. Miller, who worked for the FDA from 1979 to 1994, states:"In the early 1980s, when I headed the team at the FDA that was reviewing the NDA for recombinant human insulin, . . . we were ready to recommend approval a mere four months after the application was submitted (at a time when the average time for NDA review was more than two and a half years). With quintessential bureaucratic reasoning, my supervisor refused to sign off on the approval—even though he agreed that the data provided compelling evidence of the drug’s safety and effectiveness. “If anything goes wrong,” he argued, “think how bad it will look that we approved the drug so quickly.”http://www.fdareview.org...Economist Sam Peltzman has studied the affects of the Kefauver-Harris act of 1962, which was the start of the FDA program to "provide proof of the effectiveness and safety" of drugs. Peltzman:"The number of new drugs approved dropped in half after Kefauver-Harris, there was no equivalent fall in the introduction of ineffective or unsafe pharmaceuticals. All the Congress managed to do was strain out potentially life-saving products" http://fee.org..."people will die of pollution and the environment will be tainted with no enviro regs"A true laissez-faire system has no public property other than the resources used by government. It also fully protects property rights by law. It is the presence of public property that vastly increases pollution and other environmental problems. Property owners have great incentives to protect their property and will have the law backing them up. I will just site one example of how public property results in the "tragedy of the commons".The Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010 was greatly influenced by government regulation. First of all, the oceans are unowned. The are no lawsuits made by property owners and therefore the only protection is the limited protection the government itself can bring to bear. Regulations affected this scenario in other ways. The U.S. government initially refused help in the cleanup. It turns out that foreign technology exceeds U.S. technology in cleanup capabilities. Whether this was caused by the Jones Act is up for debate. It could have been nothing more than pride. http://www.businessinsider.com...The Jones act itself is a ridiculous, protectionist policy, and it likely is the reason the U.S. has fallen behind in oil cleanup technology. The act requires "all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried on U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents" Why is the government, who also takes pride in it's anti-trust policy stance, purposely creating a monopoly?