I'm sure we're coming at this from very different perspectives but I can't quite understand how it would be better to reduce regulation on food safety than to give people enough income by default that they can eat and have a roof over their heads. At least from my perspective giving people a choice as to what they do is worlds better than forcing people to take (often multiple) unsatisfying, poorly paid, jobs just so they don't starve to death.

There are plenty of people who are capable of making healthy food, but are simply banned by the current regulatory process.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/opinion/15zachbrooks.html

What safety do you believe that requiring 2250 hours of training to be a hair braider provides?

http://madamenoire.com/501738/texas-federal-judge-rules-hair...

And why is a pack of cigarettes sold by a bodega somehow safer than a single cigarette sold by Eric Garner?

I eat food that has not been blessed by American regulators all the time. Somehow, this didn't kill me: https://goo.gl/photos/ytKacsLvkxhqCnW18

Who advocated eliminating all regulations?

that is why europe is doomed.

edit: seriously, this is fantastic post, thank you. it perfectly captures modern european mindset. how dares someone to make <whatever> without any oversight of regulations! I enjoy protection provided by EU in a form of these regulations! я очень люблю Пеже!

you sound like communist shills during Brezhnev period, rhetoric and indignation аre perfect!

Yeah, consumer protection is definitely the most Communist thing ever. Commies loooved consumption and consumers /s.

no, commies loooved protecting people, whether people liked it or not.