>>Your solution is simply to make it easier for companies to screw people. Why don't people boycott companies TODAY when they do this?

In the previous comment I explained why I don't think this will make it any easier, on the balance, for companies to screw people over. Please go over my previous comment again as I explain what I see as the trade-offs of more regulations, and how they are slanted toward people being screwed over more.

>If they do they are thrown in jail.

If they're caught. And that applies to a world without food regulations as well. Just because there's no regulatory requirement to have the food certified by the USDA doesn't mean it becomes legal to sell goop marketed as milk. That's still fraud, because it's a violation of basic contracting law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract

>>Regardings costs. Peopme are so amazingly bad at making decisions as a group.

I disagree completely. I think the market is a marvellous way to bring our collective intelligence to bear to guide product development, and is resulting in consumer food purchases becoming healthier and consumer options becoming more diverse over time. Consumer choice is the reason organic foods have seen their market share grow so much over the decades. It's the reason product diversity in supermarkets has grown so much. People are willing to pay for quality, and as society becomes more prosperous, we'll see more value-added food of higher quality.

>>>A great many industries were kickstarted by government subsidy.

Government subsidies can indeed kickstart an industry by bringing about advances in basic science and by incubating new industries, but that's not relevant to the debate of whether we should be restricting market choices with regulations, and whether industries will evolve faster with or without such regulations.

>>This is indeed a problem, but your solution is essentially to just let companies do what they would otherwise be have to lobby for. Most lobbying cases are for laxed regulation or to allow companies to get away with monopolistic practices.

My solution is to let the companies be regulated by consumer choice. Seems like the least corruptible and best incentivized system of development for an industry.

As for monopolistic practices, I endorse public funding of public options in monopolistic sectors, instead of regulations that violate the right of private market participants to act freely.

>We can argue the word "freely" then. I don't believe people freely enter contractual relationships when one side has a clear power advantage and actively tries to manipulate you.

A court of law, made up of a jury of our peers, should be determining what contract was entered into freely, not a sweeping snap judgement about an entire class of contracts without looking at the specific details of each case.

I strongly disagree with your notion that any agreement between parties of unequal wealth levels is nonconsensual, and I believe any court of law would disagree with you as well, as being inconsistent with established and legal understandings of consent.

I think one should take ideology out of these considerations and defer to the courts on issues of contract law. That's essentially what I'm endorsing by promoting the free market.

>>Perhaps you should consider that the system we have to day was born out of people making their decison to not have 100% libertarianism because they were smart enough. By your logic this would be all the reason you would ever need.

I don't believe people are smart when it comes to macro issues like economics, and thus I believe they collectively impose incredibly destructive economic policies like socialism, anti-free-market regulations, etc. through the political process, which lets the mob forcefully impose its will on everyone.

The economy is too complex for any one person to understand, so what people often do is oversimplify it with ideological notions about evil corporations, and how regulations written by some legislature can allegedly make them act in the public interest, which in reality is nonsense, and ignores how agents in the economy actually operate, and what incentives actually drive positive and economically productive behaviour.

I believe the complexity of the economy can only be addressed in a decentralized fashion, through the spontaneous emergence of market supply chains and prices, that represent the collaborative coordination of economic resources by a diverse set of parties each acting based on localized information, and who through their market actions, contribute that localized knowledge to public information resources about the larger economic picture.

It's important to try to help the average person understand that the market does work in the long run for most areas of the economy, and not to buy into the siren call of centralized and simplistic government solutions.