> defer extremely heavily to people who actually know about this stuff.
in a system with high regulatory capture, you would be defering your power to the industry's interests.
Which would still be better than defunding all our scientific research and telling people to eat Five Guys fries because they're fried with beef tallow.
Appointing a know-nothing conspiracy theorist doesn't have that exact issue, yes … but in a way where the cure is significantly worse than the disease.
You can cultivate state capacity and independent expertise to reduce regulatory capture, not replace it with a kakistocracy where regulatory capture is instead by woo-woo morons.
While true, that's still an improvement on being a conspiracy theorist.
My mum was New Age type who regularly gave me homeopathic tablets labelled "sodium chloride" and "titanium dioxide", and later Bach flower remedies.
Someone in the pocket of, say, Big Tobacco is going to downplay smoking risks; but that's still not as bad as suggesting replacing all pharmacies with table salt and white sand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathic_hospitals_in_the_N...
"The experts work in the industry they are experts in" does not necessarily mean the experts are bringing incorrect information, or that the outsiders have better information.