The problem is that the "elites" often selectively push for aspects of deregulatory strategy that benefit them, without pushing for the rest. Or, they advocate

The problem is that the "elites" often selectively push for aspects of deregulatory strategy that benefit them, without pushing for the rest. Or, they advocate for some distorted version of it that no longer is deregulatory. And then on top of it is social conservativism. For me, the Trump administration and current GOP has been a good example of this. I am the last person you'd identify as a Trump supporter, but there are policies (e.g., FDA deregulation, maybe some school deregulation) that I think would be healthy. But overall, the policies being pushed by his administration and the party pick and choose things so that the libertarian approach gets grossly distorted. In general, I am libertarian, but I don't trust the GOP to implement it, because often what you end up with is some Frankenstein monster of policy that is more fascist than libertarian. Too often, good policy theory--whether more libertarian or socialist--get distorted by the time they get to actual politicians. "Capitalized profit, socialized risk" is what you get as a result. On another note, I don't see this as a series of angry platitudes--many of the points they're making have been made elsewhere in more rigorous outlets. This is a piece that's trying to explain the principles to others. And I worry that what we often need as a society as dismissed as "angry classism" when it's just really anger, because people are suffering. I work in health care and I am acutely aware of the problems with licensure and regulation. There are reams of unnecessary regulations that increase costs, and there is a strong regulatory capture regime in the form of regulations that put physicians at a top of a hierarchy, that result in huge cost increases due to lack of competition. There have been volumes of studies showing, for example, that this hierarchical decision-making system is actually less safe, and that many roles currently legislated to physicians or other providers could be done by still other providers, such as optometrists, pharmacists, psychologists, and other providers. What I see, though, is whenever someone suggests deregulating health care, there are cries of "you're trying to decrease safety for economic benefit." It's absurd to me because the current regulations are often not based on any scientific studies, and when there are studies, they often suggest the regulations are unnecessary, or decrease safety. But at the same time, I understand these source of these concerns, because when deregulation happens, it often happens selectively, in such a way to benefit a small few at the expense of many. I'm very depressed by health care debates in the US, because they often are reduced to discussions about socialized versus capitalized payment systems, with little to no discussion of alternative regulatory systems, or transparency. To me, working in the field, the question of who pays huge costs is a symptom, not a cause, of problems in the system. I was very supportive of Obamacare, not because I saw it as the best solution, but because I hoped it would force politicians to start addressing sources of cost, especially the GOP who should be all about deregulation. Instead, they failed their opportunity, and turned it back to useless discussions about who should pay.