| | Jay:
urQ "So am I, and the distinction I'm making is that those bad regulations were bad because they were paternalistic, they created moral hazards and improper incentives. Why are you pointing out a particular observation about the market, and citing it as a reason for a regulation when it was a bad, i.e. paternalistic regulations that accounted for this problem in the first place? You want your cake and eat it too by simultaneously advocating for paternalistic regulations in response to bad consequences that resulted from paternalistic regulations."
Huh?... Regulations are regulations. Bad is bad, whether you ascribe paternalism (let's not go too deeply there) or some other reason why they are bad. The difference, the question again is "are regulations bad?" or "are bad regulations bad", which - yes - suggests that regulation can be good.
Again, you think some regulations are bad, and some are good. But you didn't give any criteria that allows us to judge whether a particular regulation is bad or good (and yes let's go deeply here Jay because since you agree with me there are some regulations that are bad, and some that are good. I gave you my standards for judging whether a particular regulation is good or bad and was asking for your standards. No reason to continue a circular discussion about wanting good rather than bad regulations, because this doesn't seem to be a point of contention between you and me, so we have to go deeper to understand the fundamental disagreement we have on the subject of regulations).
urQ "If you want "good" regulations, how to you differentiate between "bad" or "good" regulations? What is a "good" regulation? What are your standards?"
Good, objective sense. By my standards that would mean assuring respect of individual rights. By your questions, I must presume that you do not think any such good regulations are achievable. While I admit I feel there are too many fools in the world, I nevertheless feel optimistic that good regulations can be achieved.
If you judge a regulation to be good if it respects individual rights, why do you advocate regulations that disrespect individual rights? This is where we disagree. I don't believe you that you judge a regulation to be good if it protects individual rights because I have read you advocate particular regulations that restrict economic choice. That to me is a violation of individual rights, not in service to them.
urQ "You have never met me, why do you distrust me and why the altruistic concern Jay for my well-being?"
Nothing altruistic about it, what protects you... protects me. Enlightened self interest. Otherwise - nothing personal - I wouldn't care a wit.
Well no offense but deciding economic choices for me does not protect me nor does it protect you. I would never presume to try and control your life, which obviously you want to control my life, against my will, on the grounds that it is in your self-interests to control me. You want to alter economic decisions that I can make for myself based on your criteria, not my own, for what is in my best interests. What gives you the right? No offense, you don't know jack shit about my life so you are not in a position to judge what economic choices are better for me.
urQ "This is a terrible analogy. Other motorists obeying traffic laws is in your self-interest (presuming you are a motorist yourself) since unsafe driving creates a hazard to your safety and property."
Of course! Maybe you should re-read this section of my post; I posited a situation where government (the law) declared that no traffic regulations were needed, and that society told them (government) to blow it out their ear.
The fact is that such regulations are good, and needed for safety. The analogy to protective economic policies isn't terrible (except perhaps to your argument)
Regulations that restrict the kind of behavior that can risk another person's life and property are acceptable because no one has a right to endanger another person's life and property against their will. But you have no right to cheap oil on the grounds someone else is endangering your life against your will, such a criteria is not met. You also have no right to tell someone they can't engage in what you deem to be a risky bank loan, since if they defaulted on that loan, it is between the borrower and lender that feels the effects of that default, and had nothing to do with your life and property. Do you now understand why the analogy of traffic laws doesn't work? Because the distinction is whether someone is coerced or not. And me getting a loan from my bank has nothing to do with you. But me driving recklessly on the road does affect you.
urQ "So please explain how you are a laissez-faire capitalist when it appears you are more accurately a mixed-economy proponent. "
You may well be right on this point. I favor "laissez-faire", but I don't favor "laissez-le faire les erreurs qui nous nuiront".
I don't speak French.
Regulations are needed to protect, not subjugate, us.
Then why do you advocate particular regulations that subjugate us?
Also, the concept that governments might exist without establishing regulations is clearly flawed. All evidence points towards government being a natural necessity for human progress, and regulations being a natural mechanism of government. Regulations WILL be made, so we'd better learn how to make good ones. I have only, fervently, insisted that more thought needs to be given to how this may be achieved. Perhaps you more literally feel "the devil is in the detail", but it is a complex world, and I think greater consideration needs be given to those details. Simply saying "regulation is bad" is too simple
Jay, I can only presume at this point you are either not interested in what I'm saying, or you just have horrible reading comprehension skills. Since I've said probably more than a dozen times now that I never said all regulations are bad.
(Edited by John Armaos on 8/04, 7:50pm)
|
|
