4 ms·

Two points: Who are the self-selected few in substance or gun regulation? "when implemented correctly" is a very strong condition, I suppose my start-up would

Two points: Who are the self-selected few in substance or gun regulation? "when implemented correctly" is a very strong condition, I suppose my start-up would be worth billions and my country would only ask for 10% taxes if they were implemented correctly.

tremon 11y ago
In the case of illegal drugs (assuming that's what you mean with substance), the "self-selected few" are the traffickers and producers (including middle-men): they fully control pricing, availability and quality. In the case of gun regulation, it's more or less the same, but there's another component: the items themselves are a means of asserting power, so the regulation has to account for the entire product lifecycle more than with other areas (yes, drugs can also be used to assert power, but in those cases it's the supplier who has power over the user, and with guns it's the user who has power over a third party). I included "when implemented correctly" only to avoid having to discuss regulatory failures such as market capture (e.g. FCC) or rubber-stamping (e.g. FISA) as fundamental arguments against regulation. We don't use Volkswagen's recent troubles as arguments against cars in general, yet somehow that line of reasoning is valid when discussing regulation.
- dmichulke 11y ago
  In the drug case people are not self-selected, because anyone can easily become a trafficker himself. Same for the gun regulation case. However, as soon as there is a legal structure that exerts regulation, it's very hard, basically impossible, to enter the regulatory institution. This staticness is one of the reasons, regulatory institutions fail after some time - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
  - tremon 11y ago
    But that's exactly what I meant with self-selection: anyone can choose to become a power figure in an unregulated market. How did you interpret self-selection? Yes, regulatory bodies require maintenance and vigilance both to remain effective and to maintain an accessible market. Neither is a fundamental argument against regulation.

tremon 11y ago

In the case of illegal drugs (assuming that's what you mean with substance), the "self-selected few" are the traffickers and producers (including middle-men): they fully control pricing, availability and quality. In the case of gun regulation, it's more or less the same, but there's another component: the items themselves are a means of asserting power, so the regulation has to account for the entire product lifecycle more than with other areas (yes, drugs can also be used to assert power, but in those cases it's the supplier who has power over the user, and with guns it's the user who has power over a third party). I included "when implemented correctly" only to avoid having to discuss regulatory failures such as market capture (e.g. FCC) or rubber-stamping (e.g. FISA) as fundamental arguments against regulation. We don't use Volkswagen's recent troubles as arguments against cars in general, yet somehow that line of reasoning is valid when discussing regulation.

dmichulke 11y ago
In the drug case people are not self-selected, because anyone can easily become a trafficker himself. Same for the gun regulation case. However, as soon as there is a legal structure that exerts regulation, it's very hard, basically impossible, to enter the regulatory institution. This staticness is one of the reasons, regulatory institutions fail after some time - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
- tremon 11y ago
  But that's exactly what I meant with self-selection: anyone can choose to become a power figure in an unregulated market. How did you interpret self-selection? Yes, regulatory bodies require maintenance and vigilance both to remain effective and to maintain an accessible market. Neither is a fundamental argument against regulation.