4 ms·

Yes Free Market. Less regulations is always beneficial in the end.

by rtx 9y ago

aninhumer 9y ago
That's not an argument, it's a statement of ideology. You might believe it, but it's not going to convince anyone who doesn't share your premise that less regulation is always better. Many people believe that regulations can create something far closer to the economic ideal of a Free Market than property rights alone. For example, food labelling regulation arguably moves the market closer to perfect information, which is a necessary feature of an idealised Free Market.
- rtx 9y ago
  The problem is, its difficult to control people who create those regulations.
  - aninhumer 9y ago
    But is that an inherent problem with regulation? Or with the way they're created in (e.g.) the US? Also, regulatory capture can lead to regulation that causes market inefficiency, but (if you accept my previous argument) lack of regulation may also cause market inefficiency (e.g. due to obfuscated product information) so it's not necessarily better.
    - escherize 9y ago
      If nutrition facts regulations went away tomorrow, I suspect the market would enforce their existence anyway. I think consumers want to know what is in the food they're eating, so you would get many startups who study what makes something healthy, or finding cheaper ways to list calories and ingredients, instead of listening to the government telling you about the food pyramid etc. Even if customers deem it too expensive to pay for the nutrition facts, then how do you or others gain the right to intervene in a voluntary act between two people?
      - aninhumer 9y ago
        >If nutrition facts regulations went away tomorrow, I suspect the market would enforce their existence anyway. Yes, because people are used to it now, so they'd be suspicious of products omitting them. Nonetheless, I suspect even that would slowly be eroded over time. >you would get many startups who study what makes something healthy You have plenty of diet purveyors telling you what to eat now. Most of them are not particularly evidence-based, and many of them are straight up wrong, but people listen to them and they make money regardless. People have little way to judge their accuracy.
      - root_axis 9y ago
        This is demonstrably false as we've already seen companies fight against regulations that force them to provide information about products (like country of origin or GMO labeling). The companies actually argue that giving the consumer more information puts them at a disadvantage because consumers might be misinformed about the implications of this new information, e.g. "GMOs are bad, so I won't buy them". For the record, I think the argument is correct, I just don't think it justifies concealing the information, people should be able to use whatever arbitrary or incorrect criteria they please when it comes to how they spend their money.
bkkssnn 9y ago
Follow up question, do you honestly believe Murica is a free market?
- rtx 9y ago
  No, thats why we need less regulation not more. Have them as a guiding principle. Regulations are always used to stifle competition.
  - soundwave106 9y ago
    In my opinion this statement is false when it comes to regulations that limit the ability of monopolies to form. Monopolies have been a well-proven failure point of capitalism, in that monopolies have the ability to also stifle competition in itself. A large point of net neutrality, as I understand it, is to hinder monopolistic-style traffic shaping that might potentially stifle upstarts. Already the situation with high speed Internet is pretty bad in this nation -- with few choices in many locations (sometimes only one!), America has one of the highest cost high speed Internet networks among developed nations; high speed Internet providers often are ranked very poorly when it comes to customer service. If you want to focus on getting rid of regulations, focus on the actual laws that prevent good true competition in the ISP realm from happening in the first place. Look at, say, legal issues Google Fiber ran into -- http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2016/08/13/council-attorney-raises-legal-issues-google-fiber-proposal/88636478/ http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2016/08/13/council-atto.... Look at the 21 states that have codified restrictions against municipal fiber -- https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-21-laws-states-use-to-crush-broadband-competition https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-21-laws-state...). Etc.
jackmott 9y ago
citation needed
- rtx 9y ago
  You will need to look at extremes. http://www.firstpost.com/india/how-india-grows-at-night-while-the-government-sleeps-469035.html http://www.firstpost.com/india/how-india-grows-at-night-whil... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zst4uzUGGqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zst4uzUGGqM
chasing 9y ago
False.
clmckinley 9y ago
I am strongly on the side of free markets. The problem is that large infrastructure based industries like the internet are very vulnerable to monopolies or oligopolies. That is clearly the case with the internet and it is getting worse with the infrastructure owners are buying the content companies. When oligopolies own the infrastructure needed for other companies to innovate then that is exactly where the government needs to step in to prevent them from abusing their position to stifle innovation. That move actually protects the free market.
- rtx 9y ago
  Do you know how they become oligopolies, by using regulation. Government should just help by removing barriers. Let there be innovation in ISP space.
  - swsieber 9y ago
    Yup, but that's not what this net nuetrality removal will do - it keeps the regulations that give monopoly positions possible, while removing regulations that prevented certain abuses. I'm in favor of removing some regulations here. I'm not in favor of calling all regulation removals good.
  - unityByFreedom 9y ago
    > Do you know how they become oligopolies, by using regulation Perhaps. Without any regulation, what we might consider criminal activity increases. > Government should just help by removing barriers. Let there be innovation in ISP space Not sure I would call content silos "innovation" It isn't true that any and all regulation is bad, nor is it true that it's all good. We've chosen to make some laws as a society over which we will punish law-breakers for thousands of years. We just need to decide how to approach net neutrality in 2017 and make the best choice for increasing quality of life.
ue_ 9y ago
Adam Smith thought that the free market was termed as such because it is free from the control of its participants. The 'free' market isn't very free for those certain labourers, especially in those developing countries. It isn't 'free' for those most people who cannot accumulate sufficient capital without putting their life on the line. It isn't 'free' for the people who have no way to get clean water without paying exorbitant amounts for it. The 'free market' being good is a myth. It's only free for the owners of private property.
thomastjeffery 9y ago
As a libertarian, I am disappointed in the appeal to ideology here. We aren't talking about regulations in general. We are talking about one specific regulation. To bring up an ideology as an argument against something specific is to disregard any productive conversation about the topic. I am a libertarian, and therefore, in general, abhor regulation. I am also a realist. This regulation is necessary in the reality in which you and I preside. I have yet to hear any actual argument (not an appeal to ideology) - for me to agree or disagree with - stated in opposition to net neutrality.

Yes Free Market. Less regulations is always beneficial in the end.

by rtx 9y ago

Yes Free Market. Less regulations is always beneficial in the end.

That's not an argument, it's a statement of ideology. You might believe it, but it's not going to convince anyone who doesn't share your premise that less regulation is always better. Many people believe that regulations can create something far closer to the economic ideal of a Free Market than property rights alone. For example, food labelling regulation arguably moves the market closer to perfect information, which is a necessary feature of an idealised Free Market.

rtx 9y ago
The problem is, its difficult to control people who create those regulations.
- aninhumer 9y ago
  But is that an inherent problem with regulation? Or with the way they're created in (e.g.) the US? Also, regulatory capture can lead to regulation that causes market inefficiency, but (if you accept my previous argument) lack of regulation may also cause market inefficiency (e.g. due to obfuscated product information) so it's not necessarily better.
  - escherize 9y ago
    If nutrition facts regulations went away tomorrow, I suspect the market would enforce their existence anyway. I think consumers want to know what is in the food they're eating, so you would get many startups who study what makes something healthy, or finding cheaper ways to list calories and ingredients, instead of listening to the government telling you about the food pyramid etc. Even if customers deem it too expensive to pay for the nutrition facts, then how do you or others gain the right to intervene in a voluntary act between two people?
    - aninhumer 9y ago
      >If nutrition facts regulations went away tomorrow, I suspect the market would enforce their existence anyway. Yes, because people are used to it now, so they'd be suspicious of products omitting them. Nonetheless, I suspect even that would slowly be eroded over time. >you would get many startups who study what makes something healthy You have plenty of diet purveyors telling you what to eat now. Most of them are not particularly evidence-based, and many of them are straight up wrong, but people listen to them and they make money regardless. People have little way to judge their accuracy.
    - root_axis 9y ago
      This is demonstrably false as we've already seen companies fight against regulations that force them to provide information about products (like country of origin or GMO labeling). The companies actually argue that giving the consumer more information puts them at a disadvantage because consumers might be misinformed about the implications of this new information, e.g. "GMOs are bad, so I won't buy them". For the record, I think the argument is correct, I just don't think it justifies concealing the information, people should be able to use whatever arbitrary or incorrect criteria they please when it comes to how they spend their money.

bkkssnn 9y ago

Follow up question, do you honestly believe Murica is a free market?

rtx 9y ago
No, thats why we need less regulation not more. Have them as a guiding principle. Regulations are always used to stifle competition.
- soundwave106 9y ago
  In my opinion this statement is false when it comes to regulations that limit the ability of monopolies to form. Monopolies have been a well-proven failure point of capitalism, in that monopolies have the ability to also stifle competition in itself. A large point of net neutrality, as I understand it, is to hinder monopolistic-style traffic shaping that might potentially stifle upstarts. Already the situation with high speed Internet is pretty bad in this nation -- with few choices in many locations (sometimes only one!), America has one of the highest cost high speed Internet networks among developed nations; high speed Internet providers often are ranked very poorly when it comes to customer service. If you want to focus on getting rid of regulations, focus on the actual laws that prevent good true competition in the ISP realm from happening in the first place. Look at, say, legal issues Google Fiber ran into -- http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2016/08/13/council-attorney-raises-legal-issues-google-fiber-proposal/88636478/ http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2016/08/13/council-atto.... Look at the 21 states that have codified restrictions against municipal fiber -- https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-21-laws-states-use-to-crush-broadband-competition https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-21-laws-state...). Etc.

jackmott 9y ago

citation needed

rtx 9y ago
You will need to look at extremes. http://www.firstpost.com/india/how-india-grows-at-night-while-the-government-sleeps-469035.html http://www.firstpost.com/india/how-india-grows-at-night-whil... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zst4uzUGGqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zst4uzUGGqM

chasing 9y ago

False.

clmckinley 9y ago

I am strongly on the side of free markets. The problem is that large infrastructure based industries like the internet are very vulnerable to monopolies or oligopolies. That is clearly the case with the internet and it is getting worse with the infrastructure owners are buying the content companies. When oligopolies own the infrastructure needed for other companies to innovate then that is exactly where the government needs to step in to prevent them from abusing their position to stifle innovation. That move actually protects the free market.

rtx 9y ago
Do you know how they become oligopolies, by using regulation. Government should just help by removing barriers. Let there be innovation in ISP space.
- swsieber 9y ago
  Yup, but that's not what this net nuetrality removal will do - it keeps the regulations that give monopoly positions possible, while removing regulations that prevented certain abuses. I'm in favor of removing some regulations here. I'm not in favor of calling all regulation removals good.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  > Do you know how they become oligopolies, by using regulation Perhaps. Without any regulation, what we might consider criminal activity increases. > Government should just help by removing barriers. Let there be innovation in ISP space Not sure I would call content silos "innovation" It isn't true that any and all regulation is bad, nor is it true that it's all good. We've chosen to make some laws as a society over which we will punish law-breakers for thousands of years. We just need to decide how to approach net neutrality in 2017 and make the best choice for increasing quality of life.

ue_ 9y ago

Adam Smith thought that the free market was termed as such because it is free from the control of its participants. The 'free' market isn't very free for those certain labourers, especially in those developing countries. It isn't 'free' for those most people who cannot accumulate sufficient capital without putting their life on the line. It isn't 'free' for the people who have no way to get clean water without paying exorbitant amounts for it. The 'free market' being good is a myth. It's only free for the owners of private property.

thomastjeffery 9y ago

As a libertarian, I am disappointed in the appeal to ideology here. We aren't talking about regulations in general. We are talking about one specific regulation. To bring up an ideology as an argument against something specific is to disregard any productive conversation about the topic. I am a libertarian, and therefore, in general, abhor regulation. I am also a realist. This regulation is necessary in the reality in which you and I preside. I have yet to hear any actual argument (not an appeal to ideology) - for me to agree or disagree with - stated in opposition to net neutrality.