4 ms·

To the extent that regulatory capture is itself an inevitable outcome of capitalism, maybe.

by Buldak 8y ago

llcoolv 8y ago
This is the same as suggesting that organized crime is an inevitable outcome of human ambition. So sad.
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
You can't have regulatory capture without regulations! That is mostly tongue in cheek of course, but it does really bring up a point in that if there were stringent controls on regulation it could help minimize the issue. And if nothing else there's some beautiful irony in regulation being in need of regulation.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > if there were stringent controls on regulation it could help minimize the issue It would just shift attention to the organs of government controlling said regulation. The insight of democracy is it seeks to balance, not suppress, human nature. Capitalism and democracy healthily co-exist because the former produces the private property rights that keep state power in check. Keeping that checking function itself balanced is the crisis–and opportunity–of our modern era.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  Automatic, mandatory scheduled review for regulations and mandatory sunset provisions for laws would be a damn good start. It would solve a lot of social issue too.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    Absolutely. Another idea here would also be to require more than just a majority to pass a law, or 'refresh' it. It never made any sense to me that laws, treaties, and other decisions that seriously affect 100% of people end up getting passed by 51/49 majorities. If laws required e.g. a 75% vote, then we would need to work with one another to create ideas that are globally beneficial, ideally helping to mitigate some of the increasing partisanship today. Given that we're split just about down the line it means both parties will invariably have their time in control which removes the necessity of working together. So people are just increasingly radicalizing on one side or the other and then hoping for 'their side' to force whatever they want done, through. It doesn't feel like this is really in the spirit of democracy. Of course this is all mental masturbation since none of this will ever happen. But for the next nation starting from scratch, we will have an even greater base of knowledge to grow from. I think there's no doubt that the United States went from backwoods outpost to most powerful nation, in the blink of an eye, largely because we were able to learn from and avoid the mistakes of other nations that had become so entrenched in their ways that change became unreasonably difficult -- similar to the state we are in today.

To the extent that regulatory capture is itself an inevitable outcome of capitalism, maybe.

by Buldak 8y ago

To the extent that regulatory capture is itself an inevitable outcome of capitalism, maybe.

llcoolv 8y ago

This is the same as suggesting that organized crime is an inevitable outcome of human ambition. So sad.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

You can't have regulatory capture without regulations! That is mostly tongue in cheek of course, but it does really bring up a point in that if there were stringent controls on regulation it could help minimize the issue. And if nothing else there's some beautiful irony in regulation being in need of regulation.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> if there were stringent controls on regulation it could help minimize the issue It would just shift attention to the organs of government controlling said regulation. The insight of democracy is it seeks to balance, not suppress, human nature. Capitalism and democracy healthily co-exist because the former produces the private property rights that keep state power in check. Keeping that checking function itself balanced is the crisis–and opportunity–of our modern era.
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
Automatic, mandatory scheduled review for regulations and mandatory sunset provisions for laws would be a damn good start. It would solve a lot of social issue too.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  Absolutely. Another idea here would also be to require more than just a majority to pass a law, or 'refresh' it. It never made any sense to me that laws, treaties, and other decisions that seriously affect 100% of people end up getting passed by 51/49 majorities. If laws required e.g. a 75% vote, then we would need to work with one another to create ideas that are globally beneficial, ideally helping to mitigate some of the increasing partisanship today. Given that we're split just about down the line it means both parties will invariably have their time in control which removes the necessity of working together. So people are just increasingly radicalizing on one side or the other and then hoping for 'their side' to force whatever they want done, through. It doesn't feel like this is really in the spirit of democracy. Of course this is all mental masturbation since none of this will ever happen. But for the next nation starting from scratch, we will have an even greater base of knowledge to grow from. I think there's no doubt that the United States went from backwoods outpost to most powerful nation, in the blink of an eye, largely because we were able to learn from and avoid the mistakes of other nations that had become so entrenched in their ways that change became unreasonably difficult -- similar to the state we are in today.