Throughout history people have survived without the government being involved in every aspect of their lives. The “market” ie. the buyers, lenders, users, etc make demands and uses or buys the product if it meets them. In your S.F. fire example I’m certain the lenders and buyers would have demanded changes before investing, lending, etc. With or without govt. intervention we all accept certain risks.
Cars could be made safer. The market doesn’t want them and we all know thousands of lives could be saved. The gov’t does step in here also but I would argue
Lets use your homebuilding example. Actually lets use manufactured homes since thats the business I’m in. When the gov’t first started regulating the building of them in 1976 they were already being built to a certain standard the customer demanded. When HUD stepped in the factories were puzzled because they were already building them better then the regulations provided. Now evey last detail in that home has some regulation pertaining to it. Even with that we get homes that come out with crossed wiring and other hazards. The regulations don’t save us a bit. What motivates the producer here is the knoweldge we’ll buy from a different manufacturer as well as civil liability.
The point I’m not sure I’m articulating very well is the government is the most inneficient way to regulate a society and in the end the market would have done it anyway to whatever standards that society demanded.
