Message from @Paradox
Discord ID: 518035578709737483
depends on what the regulations are regulating. Anything outside the market, is a separate system.
Which again is why I like to use specific examples.
Then what about the one cat said? What about lobbying firms, these are private businesses
What about slavery? That was a private transaction between businesses
limit government power and they go away on their own.
So, Paradox, where do you believe regulation of a market makes sense when the ideal is considered a free market but there is also the desire to maximize the overall social benefit of a market?
Codes, please stop
Ok
Throwing out so many topics you overwhelm the other member and they can't answer without confusing things
Alright, I will stop
So, @Paradox, where do you believe regulation of a market makes sense when the ideal is considered a free market but there is also the desire to maximize the overall social benefit of a market?
1. I don't believe regulation of a market makes sense, ever. 2. Desire? Not interested.
So, in the instance of public safety, how do you address companies lying on labels by placing ingredients different from what they say in a product? Or using unsafe ingredients? Food and drug purity and safety have not always been assumed. In 1906 the feds had to regulate the market to assure products contained what the labels said they did and in 1938 the same had to happen to ensure the products were even basically safe. Both regulations were in response to real market abuses.
@RyeNorth, feel free to let me know your thoughts on this particular instance of regulation as well if you are interested. Or anyone else. Working in health care, regulations in my industry are, the ones I am most familiar with so I'll tend toward those examples for my questions. And trust me, I've got some humdingers for stupid regs. 🙄
Take them to court and sue them. For breach of contract. They said they were selling me this, they instead sold me this.
As for safety, that's also a criminal case.
And in the process people die? Again, that's what happened in the 1930 and before.
Sure.
Okay. You're a purist. That's cool. We're going to agree to disagree.
See Codes, that was easy. 😃
lol...
But you didn't sign a contract, you just showed or in older times didn't show the ingredients
No regulations means, it's not a crime
contract is an agreement, between 2 or more parties.
And the agreement was, I will buy this
If Paradox is willing to permit the deaths of innocents in his adherence to a pure free market, I suspect he won't have issue with some fiscal imbalances. No point in pursuing further. And no, I'm not saying Codes isn't moral, I'm simply saying that his worldview permits immorality which is dealt with after the fact. Mine wishes to address socially harmful immorality proactively. But his is likely more internally consistent because mine will always waffle over shades of grey. I respect his worldview even as I will do everything I can to counter it because my morality differs.
He does until it's his mother, or son
"this" has to be "this" and not "that".
that's the breach.
I will fight to protect him even as he eschews my protecting him. We'll be in conflict, but that doesn't mean that I don't respect him and even envy the simplicity of his worldview.
That was only a thing because of regulation, if they never regulated it. They could continue on with no consequences
no, that's an agreement.
I'm assuming he's fine with his son dying due to bad products and that he'll feel redeemed by the legal proceedings afterward to make him whole in his loss.
That dont do anything because it's not illegal to lie to your consumers
That's the logical conclusion of his argument for a pure free market. He's willing to die for it.
Until ofc regulations