3 ms·

The point of "mindless "anti-regulation" is that "no regulations" is the default position, and it's the proponents of regulation who should substantiate their c

The point of "mindless "anti-regulation" is that "no regulations" is the default position, and it's the proponents of regulation who should substantiate their claims that a specific regulation should exist; also that the lack of sufficient evidence in favor should automatically result in the default position being more favorable. In relation to the Chesterton’s Fence parable, a lot of people think that the fact that no one knows why it's there is in itself the reason to remove the fence, since the most common reason the fences are built in the first place it to provide someone particular the advantage over everyone else (limit access to the territory, markets, etc).

rmxt 10y ago
Perhaps on the North Sentinel Islands now, or 4,000 years or so elsewhere in the world, "no regulations" is / was the default position. That isn't the case for recent history in most of the world. Claiming that "no regulations" is the default position, and that all existing and future regulations must be reasoned, argued and articulated from first principles sounds like a distraction, more so than a reasonable way to approach the current political atmosphere.