zlacker

Except that there are rules and regulations and laws about food safety, and restaurants regularly do get shut down by the health inspector if they fail to pass muster, and customers have plentiful ways to share their bad experiences and other customers will take them seriously and the restaurant will lose business as a result of their shoddy practices. In other words, there is no comparision: this system actually works decently well, all things considered. Regular folks can have high trust that, either they are eating at a clean establishment, or if it's not clean, then it will be dealt with.

Compare that to the opaqueness of police misconduct/brutality internal investigations, or how frequently even the bad actors that are known to have done wrong, are still granted their pensions. Where is the equivalent payout for a restaurant owner who doesn't follow health rules? Where do you see other restaurant owners banding together to defend a restaurateur who's had their misconduct exposed? Where do you see something equivalent to "qualified immunity" for the food industry?

In other words, this is a great example of a reasonably well-functioning market. If regulating the police behaved much more like regulating the food industry, that would actually be fantastic. In many ways, that is exactly the goal of the protests, to bring a similar level of transparency and accountability and high standards to policing, as most people already expect and has long been standard for the food industry (in developed countries).