4 ms·

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 regul

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.

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.