Is Government Regulation/Intervention Good or Bad?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

So everytime consumers dont like market offering, the gov should step in and regulate left and right? Thats great, I think Porsche and Ferrari are screwing us over, the gov should step in a regulate prices of luxury sport cars?

Who is living where?

BTW love that way of thinking - profitability seen as evil....

And when those services are seen as essential to the public good?

I'll pick one, Electricity.

You're cool with an unregulated monopoly on that?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by badnarik

if your kid gets a beating at daycare, the person will go to jail whether or not the industry is regulated.

How so? The legal system is one big regulation, so if we 'de-regulate' the legal system, who's going to prosecute the daycare?

[Flame Of Liberty]

I am cool with unregulated markets.

Even if I dont like what is out there for me to purchase, I still understand that it is not my right to demand that the gov will force the company to alter its offering (say decrease the price) to meet my wishes.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Oh my god there is so much wrong with this post and with the way you "understand things" I dont know where to start.

I 'understand things' just fine. Your anarcho-capitalist philosophy is fun and dandy to pick apart, but there's no point equating it with real life.

1. Companies should aim to create safe working environment - thats a moral stance I can agree with. However, I dont see how can anyone tell me how can I run my business. The workers themselves can decide if they find my factory too dangerous to work in. What if they want to work there and bureaucrat Ag says "no they cant because its too dangerous!" ? Sorry, but its up to 2 parties engaged in business to decide if they find their agreement fair or not.

Right... but you're prioritizing the needs of the company over the needs of the individual (odd). If you live in a one-factory town, and it happens to be dangerous, your options are A) work in a dangerous factory B) leave town. That sounds like an ideal society to you? I'm glad it doesn't mix with reality.

2. If someone beat your kids, they agressed against them. Unwarranted agression is not legitimate, you dont need any regulations for that, unless you equate "regulations" and "law" which is clearly wrong.

So... what do you do to the daycare? They've agressed my kid... so now what? I tell them that their agression was not legitimate? How does that fix anything? How does that prevent it from happening all the time, given that there are no penalties because there is no regulation?

How is agression penalized in your system?

3. Insider trading, I dont have enough time to elaborate, but I think its laughable that insider trading is considered a crime.

Um... I think its laughable that you think insider trading shouldn't be a crime.

4. Fraud is act of agression, see point 2.

See answer to point 2.

5. Sure investment "existis" in AnCap world. What "guarantees" you have in mind? If someone breaches contract, again thats a form of agression. You are again confusing "law" that stems from the objective nature of the world with "regulations" which are mere opinions of policymakers how should other people run their businesses.

Ok... so how do we prosecute people who are agressive?

You seem to think everything can be deregulated... how does the legal system survive this deregulation as it is one of the most heavily regulated institutions in the country??? I don't know how you can separate regulation and the legal system...

6. Sorry, but your last sentence is just your uninformed opinion.

Lol, too funny!!! You honestly believe you are espousing a legitimate economic and legal system? And I'M the one who's uninformed? Rich!

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I am cool with unregulated markets.

Even if I dont like what is out there for me to purchase, I still understand that it is not my right to demand that the gov will force the company to alter its offering (say decrease the price) to meet my wishes.

So you're ok with getting the power shut off in the middle of winter because you cannot afford to pay the price? Or the thousands of others who couldn't afford to pay the price and freeze to death?

Sounds like a wonderful society you want.

Go on Aga, you should ask him how he feels about Police forces, I mean you couldn't see anything wrong with a "private police force", could you?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by badnarik

i stopped licking frozen metal poles after the first time my tongue stuck to one. a playground with razor monkey bars wouldn't exist because the people, without government intervention, wouldn't allow it to be in their neighborhood.

Hmm... so you mean the neighbourhood would 'regulate' against razor monkey bars... interesting form of de-regulation.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

How so? The legal system is one big regulation, so if we 'de-regulate' the legal system, who's going to prosecute the daycare?

Law and law enforcement can be produced on "de-regulated" markets. Cities in medieval Italy were competing among themselves to provide the "best" legal environment for their citizens. Successful cities attracted more citizens, more businesses and thrived as opposed to cities that regulated everything they could.

Absence of regulation does not mean absence of law. Absence of gov monopoly to create legislatio and to enforce it does not mean absence of law.

But I suppose we can never agree on this, provided we cannot agree on much easier matters such as regulation of education or work environment...

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

So you're ok with getting the power shut off in the middle of winter because you cannot afford to pay the price? Or the thousands of others who couldn't afford to pay the price and freeze to death?

Sounds like a wonderful society you want.

Go on Aga, you should ask him how he feels about Police forces, I mean you couldn't see anything wrong with a "private police force", could you?

No doubt. Without police/judicial regulations, it would be a free for all. A gang would be pilfering FoL's house while he shouts 'this is an unwarranted and illegitimate form of agression!' at them... I'm sure they'll respect his wishes.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Law and law enforcement can be produced on "de-regulated" markets. Cities in medieval Italy were competing among themselves to provide the "best" legal environment for their citizens. Successful cities attracted more citizens, more businesses and thrived as opposed to cities that regulated everything they could.

Right... and each city had regulations and laws in place. How is that de-regulated? This is just localizing the same regulations that exist on a national level. That is not de-regulation, its de-centralization. Those aren't the same thing.

Absence of regulation does not mean absence of law. Absence of gov monopoly to create legislatio and to enforce it does not mean absence of law.

So who enforces the law? Who generates what the law decides is right and wrong?

But I suppose we can never agree on this, provided we cannot agree on much easier matters such as regulation of education or work environment...

We can agree that there is the way things work in the 'real world', and then there is Anarcho-Capitalism, and the two shall never meet (barring global disaster, maybe).

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I 'understand things' just fine. Your anarcho-capitalist philosophy is fun and dandy to pick apart, but there's no point equating it with real life.

Oh right, because the world is full of collectivist like you who force their wishes on other people. And there is too few of us to resist, you say we are disconnected with real life. I guess prisoners (of the system) are disconnected with real life (created by opressors).

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Right... but you're prioritizing the needs of the company over the needs of the individual (odd). If you live in a one-factory town, and it happens to be dangerous, your options are A) work in a dangerous factory B) leave town. That sounds like an ideal society to you? I'm glad it doesn't mix with reality.

I am not prioritizin anything. You need 2 parties to form a contract. They both agree, fine. They dont agree, no contract is made. Where is the harm?

Whats up with these little "doesnt mix with reality" jabs. What doesnt mix? People dont leave cities to find a better job? People dont migrate from continent to continent? You are the one who doesnt see the reality.

If you cannot find a job in your town, the gov should step in a force a company to set up a factory there? Or force it to keep it open? To keep you happy? Who is not living in reality? You have such paternalistic views of the world its not funny.

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

How so? The legal system is one big regulation, so if we 'de-regulate' the legal system, who's going to prosecute the daycare?

i agree you need rule of law, i am not questioning that.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

No doubt. Without police/judicial regulations, it would be a free for all. A gang would be pilfering FoL's house while he shouts 'this is an unwarranted and illegitimate form of agression!' at them... I'm sure they'll respect his wishes.

I would hire a private security firm to protect my house. Hows that? Or are security firms disconnected from reality too?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Ag, you remind me of a guy standing in the middle of Sahara listening to me talking about oceans thinking I am crazy because all you have seen in your life is sand.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I would hire a private security firm to protect my house. Hows that? Or are security firms disconnected from reality too?

I'd hire a bigger, better firm, and have them kill the members of your security firm and burn your house down... whats to stop me from doing that?

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Hmm... so you mean the neighbourhood would 'regulate' against razor monkey bars... interesting form of de-regulation.

i'm saying the neighborhood would tear it down, and they wouldn't need a rulebook from the government to figure that out for them. people can regulate their own lives.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Ag, you remind me of a guy standing in the middle of Sahara listening to me talking about oceans thinking I am crazy because all you have seen in your life is sand.

Wow. That pretty much sums up my feelings about your theory. I guess we're not that far apart after all

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by badnarik

i'm saying the neighborhood would tear it down, and they wouldn't need a rulebook from the government to figure that out for them. people can regulate their own lives.

Right... but as soon as the 'community' is regulating it, doesn't that become collective regulation? What if I install the razor monkey bars myself because I get off on hurting kids? You can tear them down... but I can put them back up. Unless you, as a community, regulate that I cannot build them, and then back up that regulation with law enforcement regulations that would prevent me from putting them up.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

So who enforces the law? Who generates what the law decides is right and wrong?

I still wouldn't mind an answer to this question, it seems pertinent.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I'd hire a bigger, better firm, and have them kill the members of your security firm and burn your house down... whats to stop me from doing that?

The fact that people would come together to defend themselves against "security firms" killing people left and right and burning their houses. That would be common sense. No?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

The fact that people would come together to defend themselves against "security firms" killing people left and right and burning their houses. That would be common sense. No?

It would be collectivised security, no? Thats not exactly 'individualistic', is it? And whose to say your community is strong enough to deny my security firm from burning down everything the community owns? If my firm is strong enough to overcome your people attempting to defend themselves, can't I just kill them all?