4 ms·

> I claimed that regulation is antithetical to free exchange -- if you restrict me from trading something then I am not free to trade it Not quite. If you buy

> I claimed that regulation is antithetical to free exchange -- if you restrict me from trading something then I am not free to trade it Not quite. If you buy something without knowing what you're getting, that's not free trade. An airline selling a ticket on an unsafe plane but calling it safe is fraud, and fraud is not free trade. A "perfect" regulation would only limit fraudulent trade, but allow all other types of trade. However, because we don't live in a perfect world, regulation will inevitably limit some legitimate trade as well as fraudulent trade. A "good" regulation is one that limits enough fraudulent trade to more than compensate for the legitimate trade that it inhibits.

blotter_paper 7y ago
> Not quite. If you buy something without knowing what you're getting, that's not free trade. As a matter of language, I disagree. If I want to bet that the man offering me a lottery ticket is accurately conveying the odds, and you don't want to let me make that decision because you just overheard him discussing the fraud he was about to commit against me, physically stopping us from making that exchange by use of force is a restriction of my freedom to make that bad decision. We can agree or disagree about the desirability of that, but linguistically it seems pretty clear to me that this is a restriction of free exchange. Even when I supported such a use of government force I could recognise that.
- speedplane 7y ago
  > If I want to bet that the man offering me a lottery ticket is accurately conveying the odds, and you don't want to let me make that decision because you just overheard him discussing the fraud he was about to commit against me, physically stopping us from making that exchange by use of force is a restriction of my freedom to make that bad decision. If someone wants to sell your friend a lottery ticket, and you know with certainty that the seller has no intention of paying out a winner, this is not free exchange. It's just a lie and simple fraud. Furthermore, as a friend, you should probably at least try to intervene. The same is true of government (or any authority). Making a fraudulent trade is not "free exchange", legally, morally, or linguistically.
  - blotter_paper 7y ago
    I would try to intervene with language, but not violence. I would appreciate and expect the same from my friends -- there are people in my life I've discussed very similar hypotheticals with. None of that has to do with whether or not physical interference would constitute a cessation of free exchange; forget legality and morality, just think about the definitions of the words we're using. In any situation where you are using violence to stop two people from exchanging physical objects, you're interfering with free exchange. If you actually disagree with this, I would like a term which refers to the concept I'm trying to discuss. I'd suggest that you're referring to something more specific like "well informed free trade" or "information symmetric free trade".
    - speedplane 7y ago
      Who said anything about violence? No one should try to stop fraud with violence, except in extreme circumstances. The answer to fraud is to simply repay the person who was defrauded... someone who bought a fake lottery ticket should just get their money back, there is no need to resort to violence. You seem be assume that "free exchange" simply means no one is physically stopping you from making a trade. That isn't what free exchange means. Free exchange means that two consenting parties trade known goods without undue influence. If someone puts a gun to your head to buy something, that isn't free exchange. If someone sells you a fake lottery ticket passing it off as real, that isn't free exchange. If someone sells you something they don't actually own, that isn't free exchange.
      - marvin 7y ago
        You're commenting on a common libertarian rhetorical excess that's ancillary to the point being discussed: If something can be ultimately done by force, it is equivalent to violence. Meaning, when you get a parking ticket, that's state-sanctioned violence, because ultimately some non-consentual means could be applied to force you to turn over the money. Taxes are violence by the same argument, and, I presume, regulation of a lottery. (Someone might be sent to prison).
      - blotter_paper 7y ago

blotter_paper 7y ago

> Not quite. If you buy something without knowing what you're getting, that's not free trade. As a matter of language, I disagree. If I want to bet that the man offering me a lottery ticket is accurately conveying the odds, and you don't want to let me make that decision because you just overheard him discussing the fraud he was about to commit against me, physically stopping us from making that exchange by use of force is a restriction of my freedom to make that bad decision. We can agree or disagree about the desirability of that, but linguistically it seems pretty clear to me that this is a restriction of free exchange. Even when I supported such a use of government force I could recognise that.

speedplane 7y ago
> If I want to bet that the man offering me a lottery ticket is accurately conveying the odds, and you don't want to let me make that decision because you just overheard him discussing the fraud he was about to commit against me, physically stopping us from making that exchange by use of force is a restriction of my freedom to make that bad decision. If someone wants to sell your friend a lottery ticket, and you know with certainty that the seller has no intention of paying out a winner, this is not free exchange. It's just a lie and simple fraud. Furthermore, as a friend, you should probably at least try to intervene. The same is true of government (or any authority). Making a fraudulent trade is not "free exchange", legally, morally, or linguistically.
- blotter_paper 7y ago
  I would try to intervene with language, but not violence. I would appreciate and expect the same from my friends -- there are people in my life I've discussed very similar hypotheticals with. None of that has to do with whether or not physical interference would constitute a cessation of free exchange; forget legality and morality, just think about the definitions of the words we're using. In any situation where you are using violence to stop two people from exchanging physical objects, you're interfering with free exchange. If you actually disagree with this, I would like a term which refers to the concept I'm trying to discuss. I'd suggest that you're referring to something more specific like "well informed free trade" or "information symmetric free trade".
  - speedplane 7y ago
    Who said anything about violence? No one should try to stop fraud with violence, except in extreme circumstances. The answer to fraud is to simply repay the person who was defrauded... someone who bought a fake lottery ticket should just get their money back, there is no need to resort to violence. You seem be assume that "free exchange" simply means no one is physically stopping you from making a trade. That isn't what free exchange means. Free exchange means that two consenting parties trade known goods without undue influence. If someone puts a gun to your head to buy something, that isn't free exchange. If someone sells you a fake lottery ticket passing it off as real, that isn't free exchange. If someone sells you something they don't actually own, that isn't free exchange.
    - marvin 7y ago
      You're commenting on a common libertarian rhetorical excess that's ancillary to the point being discussed: If something can be ultimately done by force, it is equivalent to violence. Meaning, when you get a parking ticket, that's state-sanctioned violence, because ultimately some non-consentual means could be applied to force you to turn over the money. Taxes are violence by the same argument, and, I presume, regulation of a lottery. (Someone might be sent to prison).
    - blotter_paper 7y ago