Under the &quot;situation containing contradictory features&quot; the second paragraph takes care of that.<p>Under the &quot;absurd statement turns out to be true upon research&quot; consider how weirdly we distribute risk.  So hire an unlicensed plumber he causes a leak that destroys the house, foreclose, bankruptcy, and all the risk lands on the govt guaranteed mortgage loan provider aka the taxpayer.  So I can save $50 today with 99.9% odds and if something bad happens, all the risk falls on other people not solely on me.  You&#x27;d be a fool to ever hire a union plumber, and the government would be a fool not to prosecute unlicensed plumbers because they pay every failed mortgage.<p>Risk estimation is very interesting because much like accumulation of capital, it seems only a tiny minority of the population are any good at it.<p>There&#x27;s also the fake free market situation.  If you can&#x27;t have a meeting of the minds between you and your doctor or plumber, you can&#x27;t have a free market transaction.  Rather than sending the whole population thru med school and plumber school, it seems cheaper as an overall total societal cost to certify practitioners in both fields.  That&#x27;s the paradox of a regulated uneducated market being closer to a free market WRT identical decisions and outcomes than an unregulated uneducated market, how could adding regulation make something freer, well, clearly it doesn&#x27;t, but it makes the outcome indistinguishable from an actual free market.