4 ms·

I'm not sure we've ever seen a 100% free market so while regulation appears on the surface to have been helpful, it could be viewed as solving problems caused b

I'm not sure we've ever seen a 100% free market so while regulation appears on the surface to have been helpful, it could be viewed as solving problems caused by other regulations. It's also important to note that the vast majority of major progress (including your examples) have been tied to war, conflict and war-like situations (Cold War). Human conflict will continue to be a driver of progress but we've reached a state where the agents engaged in that conflict need not be centralized in the form of a government. Some of us would like to race toward that situation while others believe there's redeemable qualities in the status quo. Interesting times as that dichotomy will likely grow as individuals continue to be networked together without the limitations of geography or citizenship.

wpietri 11y ago
This is exactly religious logic: > I'm not sure we've ever seen a 100% free market so while regulation appears on the surface to have been helpful, it could be viewed as solving problems caused by other regulations. The prosperity gospel types, for example use it to say that if something bad ever happens to anybody, it just means their faith wasn't sufficient. [1] Communists use it too; when I've asked why we would want to try communism when it has failed every time, they explain that it just wasn't "true" communism, that it would work if we'd use a more pure version of it. This strikes me as ridiculous in two ways. One, it isn't falsifiable; nothing can ever prove it wrong. And two, advocating to run a country on a system that can't work except under the most perfect conditions is advocating for something that will never work in practice. I also reject your thesis that war is necessary for progress. Einstein wasn't out there building bombs. Most Nobel winners are not engaged in war research. The Hubble does not have military applications, and neither do gravity waves. The CDC is not paid for out of the defense budget. Your notion that the most effective way to get more progress is to have more war between non-state actors is, aside from being wrong, ridiculous as something to advocate for; exactly nobody will go along with it. I agree it's a reasonable consequence of unfettered pseudo-libertarianism, though. It's at least refreshing that you admit that; so many anti-government types have trouble admitting that by their lights Somalia is the freest place on earth. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/opinion/sunday/death-the-prosperity-gospel-and-me.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/opinion/sunday/death-the-p...

wpietri 11y ago

This is exactly religious logic: > I'm not sure we've ever seen a 100% free market so while regulation appears on the surface to have been helpful, it could be viewed as solving problems caused by other regulations. The prosperity gospel types, for example use it to say that if something bad ever happens to anybody, it just means their faith wasn't sufficient. [1] Communists use it too; when I've asked why we would want to try communism when it has failed every time, they explain that it just wasn't "true" communism, that it would work if we'd use a more pure version of it. This strikes me as ridiculous in two ways. One, it isn't falsifiable; nothing can ever prove it wrong. And two, advocating to run a country on a system that can't work except under the most perfect conditions is advocating for something that will never work in practice. I also reject your thesis that war is necessary for progress. Einstein wasn't out there building bombs. Most Nobel winners are not engaged in war research. The Hubble does not have military applications, and neither do gravity waves. The CDC is not paid for out of the defense budget. Your notion that the most effective way to get more progress is to have more war between non-state actors is, aside from being wrong, ridiculous as something to advocate for; exactly nobody will go along with it. I agree it's a reasonable consequence of unfettered pseudo-libertarianism, though. It's at least refreshing that you admit that; so many anti-government types have trouble admitting that by their lights Somalia is the freest place on earth. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/opinion/sunday/death-the-prosperity-gospel-and-me.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/opinion/sunday/death-the-p...