> That is some seriously twisted logic to turn 'regulations' into 'restrictions implemented after the event'. I don't really understand where your confusion is

> That is some seriously twisted logic to turn 'regulations' into 'restrictions implemented after the event'. I don't really understand where your confusion is coming from. Regulations usually take the form of, "X is now illegal. If you do X, you will be punished with Y." It's pretty uninteresting if you ask me. People then avoid doing X because they don't want to be punished by Y. Say a new regulation is passed that says dumping waste in the local river is illegal. Governments don't then station officials watching every corner of the river preventing waste from being dumped. People can still dump if they want. But if they're caught, they now face a potentially severe penalty. There is very little difference from how regulations fundamentally operate than how other laws function. "Don't do X. If you do, we'll do Y to you." Pretty simple. The same kind of thing is prescribed by libertarians too. The only real difference is that libertarians would like to do it without coercion. (Since most libertarians view the State as the biggest perpetrator of coercion, they understandably want to reduce or eliminate it.) None of this implies that regulations like "don't dump waste in the river" can't exist if the State were reduced or eliminated. > My criticisms would apply equally to those as well. I gave you an example in my initial comment that demonstrates how your criticism is far more broadly applicable than just libertarianism.