3 ms·

I suppose you would have the government approve every individual action you take to ensure it isn’t against the interest of “the people”. I’m just glad there’s

I suppose you would have the government approve every individual action you take to ensure it isn’t against the interest of “the people”. I’m just glad there’s still enough voters who don’t think like you, to be honest. That concerns me a lot more than how dangerous the products in the store are.

adrianN 5y ago
I don't think you need to argue against such a strawman. Do you think that literally all regulation is bad? Governments shouldn't exist at all?
neonological 5y ago
You suppose wrong. I'm kind of moderate. Seeing that I never said anything otherwise but you made a baseless supposition out of nowhere I'm guessing you're pro business in favor of total deregulation. Make no mistake. The purpose of business regulation is to protect the people. This is absolutely true. Execution of such regulations has unintended consequences though. Regulating business harms profits which harms jobs and in turn harms people who could have had the jobs. Harmed profits also harms the owners of the businesses who are also people. So basically there's a feedback loop here. You make the law for the purpose of protecting people but you are also harming people at the same time. I'm a moderate or undecided because this loop presents a practical and moral dilemma. There's a balance somewhere but no truly one knows where and the complexities of society make it so that civilization will never arrive at this balance. Society tends to oscillate wildly around this equilibrium point migrating between the two extremes of pro business and pro "the people." Tobacco is just one example. A lot of people think of tobacco as cookies, so if that's too tame for you then replace that example with Big Pharma and the opioid crisis or The dumping of toxic waste into Toms River by Big Chemical.

3 ms·

I suppose you would have the government approve every individual action you take to ensure it isn’t against the interest of “the people”. I’m just glad there’s

by oogabooga123 5y ago

adrianN 5y ago
I don't think you need to argue against such a strawman. Do you think that literally all regulation is bad? Governments shouldn't exist at all?
neonological 5y ago
You suppose wrong. I'm kind of moderate. Seeing that I never said anything otherwise but you made a baseless supposition out of nowhere I'm guessing you're pro business in favor of total deregulation. Make no mistake. The purpose of business regulation is to protect the people. This is absolutely true. Execution of such regulations has unintended consequences though. Regulating business harms profits which harms jobs and in turn harms people who could have had the jobs. Harmed profits also harms the owners of the businesses who are also people. So basically there's a feedback loop here. You make the law for the purpose of protecting people but you are also harming people at the same time. I'm a moderate or undecided because this loop presents a practical and moral dilemma. There's a balance somewhere but no truly one knows where and the complexities of society make it so that civilization will never arrive at this balance. Society tends to oscillate wildly around this equilibrium point migrating between the two extremes of pro business and pro "the people." Tobacco is just one example. A lot of people think of tobacco as cookies, so if that's too tame for you then replace that example with Big Pharma and the opioid crisis or The dumping of toxic waste into Toms River by Big Chemical.