Its implied through regulation

I mean, sure if you signed a contract everytime you leave a story

If I am walking down the street and I decide not to punch someone in the face, is that me regulating?

I guess your golden

But no one does that because regulations imply the contract exists

It is easier plus saves time and legal fees over bullshit

Just makes it easier to punish wrongdoers to regulate certain bad things

But I mean, when everybody dies because of salmonella I guess its okay

Only ones who matter are the rich

ya, we don't use the same language codes, sorry.

*hug*

@DrYuriMom life, liberty, and property. Undue deprivation of any of these should be investigated. Almost any valid crime is some combination of these matters.

In the case of lying about ingredients, I don't think requiring more open information stifles competition, I believe that creates a more liberal and consentual arrangement between buyer and seller. Hence why fraud is fraud.

If someone knowingly puts antifreeze in cough medicine after deaths have occurred, there's an argument to consider that murder. If the matter was not researched ahead of time, that's neglectful homicide. In cases of medicine, there should absolutely be a standard of research expected. My issue is with the protectionism Big Pharma partakes in. That drives prices and kills people, too, when groups like Bayer/Monsanto are able to directly influence the body that regulates the food and medical industries.

Further reading, your arguments seem to lean towards acknowledge of some sort of corporate form of thought crime. Even with our current protectionist model, we still have phen-phens and the like.

A fair and free market is not without regulation. That regulation just has to be kept light and reasonable.

<:VeRiFiEd:463064374236413962> <:VeRiFiEd:463064374236413962> <:VeRiFiEd:463064374236413962>

Like, let's consider other forms of competition. Let's say someone trains for a bicycle race with 180mm crank arms. Using that equipment, they're able to break previously held records for time on a particular time trial before a race.

Knowing these details, the previous record holder and champion, a clear expert and authority in the field, argues that the regulating body for the race should limit participant bicycles to 165mm crank arms. Is this fair competition?

I think it's not fair to limit, the idea is to break the time record, which could include improvement in technology

What I described isn't an enhancement in technology

It's a restriction on bike fitting.

I assumed that the previous rider used a 165 while the new one used a 180mm

Crank length is optimized to an individuals height

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

yes

but that's a detail

Imagine a marathon restricting shoe sizes above 12

HAHAHA

I could.

But true, is just dumb.

Imagine a job market requiring racial parity

We don't have to imagine it

I know.

If you don't let everyone compete, then you are not trying to find the best.

So, if it's found, would it require "protection"? But if protection is provided then it might come that he would not keep trying to stay the best. hmmm....

Rephrase that, I didn't get it.

Too many pronouns.

Rye, the problem is that my argument counter itself, at the end no protections (trade, regulations, etc) should be provided to a particular within any industry.

Ah.

I couldn't tell if you were trying to challenge the idea or agree with it.

or should be?

Yeah, sometimes I do that.

Perfectly valid. Means you're considering different angles.

In fact I had a conversation with my mother about it in regards to a coffee shop someone opened in my home town.