If you can convince people that Black is White, does that not by its very nature preclude govt intervention? Markets, like modern progressive governance are democratic.

I think you are implying a false distinction here, by seeming to assert that Govts remain unswayed by this type of activity where markets do not.

Once you enshrine pre-emptive powers in govt hands, this type of media assault simply ends with calling Black as Black and White as White illegal. See how you arent allowed to claim on the packaging of certain meats that you "dont" use certain chemicals/feed/techniques for one example.

As much as anything, I see moral hazard where Govt assures people something is safe for example - but it really isnt. People offload responsibility for making good decisions and vetting products to Govt, which inherently turns it into a political battle subject to powerful influences.

Where as a Consumer Reports type organization can turn a profit by being independent and relying on their customers - and as long as the Govt fulfills its proper role and protects Consumer Reports from undue threat - legal or physical - there is no problem.

If there is information that is pertinent to uses of a product, then there is a market for that information.

Of course this is talking in the area of what I would call "soft" regulation, covering things like generally safe foods (whether you think eating too much is unhealthy or not, and it probably is, corn sugar is still generally safe. ) Things like Nuclear Power and such obviously need a higher degree of oversight.

Yes there are ways to tell the difference between the types.

Thats not to say that no regulation has ever had a net positive, or that total deregulation of anything and everything is some sort of utopia.

But again, we are back to the fundamental question of how and who should decide what goes and what does not.

What the Govt has basically done, especially in certain sectors is create a virtual monopoly on the information brokerage... or should we say the trust brokerage. If the Govt says something is safe, then the product can be sold and torts become extremely difficult if not impossible. Not only does it allow power politics to interfere with proper dissemination of the knowledge you are talking about - it artificially shrinks the market for dissenting information, as fewer people are willing to invest in trusted 3rd parties to provide unbiased evaluations. It leads people to trust where they should not, in many cases.

If you know something is dangerous, and do not report it that should be a felony that is enforced. The same as if you know a guy robbed a bank and dont report it.

People have to make decisions without total knowledge. I do not think there is a way around this.

I do not see how any means of organizing society or economic can change this. As P T Barnum once said, there is a sucker born every minute. While certain abuses and misbehavior can certainly be punished after the fact, I fail to see how anyone could reasonably expect to ever write enough laws or regulation to prevent the predators from finding new ways to fleece the sheep.

The only improvement I can see, is educating people... in effect creating fewer sheep.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)