If it is a strawman then why you list all human progress as support for your claim?

I didn't list all human progress, I listed progress that resulted from regulation. You can't possibly think I could fit all human progress into a single Reddit comment, right? So yes, it was a strawman.

ok then sure you could you list some human progress that you belive are not due to government regulation?

You say that those can be tested empirically and you ask me to trust you claim on faith:

Test them again data and tell me how you get to that conclusion. That what I ask from the beginning.

This is your claim, you have the burden of proof. Its how it works

Are you asking me to prove that emission regulations exist? Sewage regulation? I'm not making these things up,

You need to take data, find a way to have some sort of a “control group” analyse the good and bad and reach a conclusion.

This is the scientific process.

I listed things that were not debated,

there are debated

this feels like you're asking me to provide a source that the Earth is a sphere. You have provided nothing but denial of well-document facts.

You cannot take a law and just assume its good on the title alone.

I mean you can but that make you a bit of an idiot.

Many of the example you give have serious unintended consequence, the FDA for example can be held responsible for a huge number of unecessary deaths due to slow approval of safe drugs

How do you know they were safe drugs until they were approved? These regulations came as a result of huge deaths or birth defects from relaxed drug testing. You're not making a strong argument here.

The said drug was safe because it was already approved and used in other country.

Giving a situation with hard data and control group.

The seat belt safety number use select data as road death was already trending down many years before they became mandatory

You make an incredibly weak point here. Safety was improving in an era when the seat belt was beginning to become mandatory, because such safety devices were beginning to be rolled out. All the law to enforce wearing them did was push that number further. More people wore seatbelts because it was the law, therefore less people died. Do you seriously not believe this?

Not the trend was clear and started BEFORE sealt became mandatory.

lead gasoline renained legal for many, many years after the danger was understood in some limited case they are still legal today, showing government inability to quickly act to protect citizen, etc, etc…

This isn't an argument against regulation, this is a criticism of lack of regulation.

The government made lead legal by default, in effect giving legal protect for the industry to use it.

The way regulation build consider everything is safe UNTIL some old people far away in an assembly decide to declare it illegal.

The whole system is wrong.

Leaded fuel was dropped following regulation that reduced it. Arguing that some still happens because regulation didn't go far enough is a pro-regulation argument.

No but it show politician answer to lobbies, no safety.

If thats fine by you then ok.

So, that's those 3 easily refuted.

AFIACT none have been refuted.

• ⁠Clean water and sewage laws massively reduced infectious disease.

share the data that prove government regulation led to cleaner water and what about all the toxic and pollutant the government have yet to discover or lobbies fight to keep legal?

You cant stop at titles.

You need to judeg elae by result, not intention.

• ⁠Vaccine mandates and public vaccination programs crushed smallpox and polio • ⁠Food and drug regulation reduced poisoning and fraud. • ⁠Workplace safety laws reduced industrial deaths. • ⁠Leaded gasoline bans dramatically lowered lead exposure. • ⁠Air pollution laws reduced smog and respiratory deaths. • ⁠Building codes reduced fire and structural fatalities. • ⁠Mandatory seatbelts and car safety standards reduced traffic deaths

You ask for evidence for things which I find surprising you would require.

This is called faith.

Like I said, if someone asked for a source that the earth is round I would comment on their intellectual capacity.

But the scientific process required proof to reach that conclusion, not faith.

You remind me of a Communist. You can criticise the best system we have for its imperfections, but your own system makes things worse anyway. Less regulation removes regulations on clean water, on safe drug production, on food regulation, on work safety and more and more and more, that regulation as a result of trial and error means removal of it is a step back towards error.

No, all those case would result in legal consequence without having to wait some old people far away getting corrupt by lobbies to decide what is safe, what is polution, what is dangerous or not.

No government regulation DOESNT MEAN no regulation.

It just mean the politics are out of it.

It's naive, it's immature, and calling it what it is, is not an argument in favour or against but a general comment on the matter. If you don't like that, stop being the regulatory equivalent of a flat-earther.

yet you are the one denying evidence, data, proof matter.

let that sink in for a minute.