[maxharris]

Straw man.

I'm not arguing for the "right to be defrauded."

(Aside: fraud is a violation of an individual's rights, by definition. Your phrase steals the concept of "rights" - it uses "rights" while simultaneously attempting to deny or undermine the very same concept of "rights.")

We need a government, and strong laws to ensure that fraud and other instances of force [including theft, murder, etc.] are identified objectively adjudicated justly, after it has been shown that someone's rights have been violated.

We shouldn't treat anyone - physicians, patients, businesses, etc. - as guilty before they've acted. That's what regulations do: they are based on the assumption that people are guilty, and that need to be stopped before they act.

I'm for treating everyone as innocent until specifically proven guilty. Why aren't you?

[roc]

Representing that you have a potential cure or treatment when you have, by definition, no scientifically sound reason to believe that's correct isn't fraud? (If they had such a reason, they'd have no trouble getting clearance for human trials. You can argue about whether the current bar for evidence is too high, but that's distinct from arguing there should be no bar at all.)

> "We shouldn't treat anyone - physicians, patients, businesses, etc. - as guilty before they've acted. That's what regulations do"

No, they don't. They regulate activities, not people. They're distinct from laws only inasmuch as we recognize that while not just everyone should be allowed to do a thing (say, drive on public roads) some people should be allowed to do those things. So we don't outlaw those activities, we regulate who is and is not allowed to do those things.

Do you believe a law against murder is equivalent to treating everyone as a murderer before they've acted? How is a regulation over who can publicly make medical claims so different? If the law simply said "no-one can make medical claims", the way no-one can yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, would that be pre-judging?