I'm just saying that powerful roles with attract power hungry people. Most regulation positions in banking and telecommunications are generally seated by previous company execs... So what's the difference in this particular regulatory body? I would definitely not make the blanket statement that MD's are always good people. I'm sure some can be pretty devious or ignorant to their (powerful) decisions.

Powerful roles do attract power hungry people. You know who else they attract? People who have some skills and want to put them to use for the betterment of society.

Not all policemen are corrupt, not all politicians are stooges, not all regulators are conmen. Quite often they are people who know how the system works and feel that they can bring their knowledge to bear to make it work better and ensure that things are done right.

I'm just critical of power and it's obligations. At many points in history, with enough power people can be made unaccountable. With less power, comes more accountability.

This is why personally I think it would be better if we released medicines and simply had "FDA approved" status post release/post approved by the institution, which would give people the choice to only use FDA approved products, but also give me the choice of utilizing other drugs I can research and make decisions about on my own.

Understood. That's a much more plausible view than your original posting.

He's an Ayn Rand worshipping objectivist, you can't reason with him. His view of people is as shallow as hers.

Not at all. You're the one who stated that people are inherently bad and that they need to be controlled. I don't agree with Ayn Rand at all.

I just believe in freedom and liberty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism.