4 ms·

But this is somehow the state of the discourse right now! It's laid out purely in extremes. People aren't even entertaining what ought to be the obvious conclus

But this is somehow the state of the discourse right now! It's laid out purely in extremes. People aren't even entertaining what ought to be the obvious conclusion given the data: there are good and bad regulations. The existence of bad regulations does not wipe out the existence of good regulations, and vice versa. Instead when I suggest that there are beneficial regulations we can put in place that would benefit a large portion of Americans, people get defensive about it! This doesn't preclude the notion that regulations can be done poorly, and that some regulations are even actively harmful. But when making arguments people rarely want to consider more than just the extreme positions.

EdSharkey 9y ago
Right, and there's truth in what you say - especially wrt extremism. Your argument brings to mind the argument that "capitalism isn't the problem, crony capitalism is". Like, if only powerful people wouldn't lie, cheat, steal and write the rules to apply differently for them. I will concede that, on a limited basis, government - specifically in the regulatory (and law enforcement) capacity - can do some good. I'm more pessimistic than you though and believe that the vast majority of new laws are not written for my benefit, and most of the time we - the society as a whole - would be better off without more rules. It's not about my trusting my fellow citizen more than the ruling class, my position is about my distrust of and opposition to busybodies and cronies. If you believe - for whatever reasons - that laws are not written nor enforced for your benefit, then maybe libertarianism isn't the worst thing. And that's all I was driving at.