"Private organizations could do the same safety checks--plus, they would have an incentive to do only the checks that actually added value"
I was thinking that this example of rent-seeking would come from non-governmental associations trying to justify their existence. If all safety checks were unnecessary, would that entity really phase them out or try to find more checks and initiatives to remain relevant?
If the organization doing the safety checks doesn't have government force on its side, it only has an incentive to do safety checks that its customers will pay for. It can always try to think up new checks and try to convince customers that they're worth paying for; private businesses do that now. But it's still the customer's choice. If the checks are mandated by the government, then the customer doesn't have a choice, and the organization making the checks now doesn't have to convince customers; it only has to convince the government, which experience suggests is much easier.
Who else do you think will pay for them? We are all customers; we all end up paying for them one way or another. The question is whether you want to pay for the regulations that actually benefit you, or the regulations that rent-seeking organizations can convince the government to use your tax dollars to pay for.
Then what is your point? If safety regulations aren't going to be limited by what customers will pay for--either directly, or indirectly via taxation--then what do you think should determine what safety regulations we get?
I was thinking that this example of rent-seeking would come from non-governmental associations trying to justify their existence. If all safety checks were unnecessary, would that entity really phase them out or try to find more checks and initiatives to remain relevant?