3 ms·

> The freer a society is, the less control and influence bureaucracies and gatekeepers have which is why governments and corporations continue to expand and ad

> The freer a society is, the less control and influence bureaucracies and gatekeepers have which is why governments and corporations continue to expand and add more and more rules, regulations, verifications, safety checks, privacy violations etc... they have a vested interest in restricting, rather than promoting, freedom.

simonh 5y ago
Right, and it's up to us to try and vote in politicians that militate against those tendencies, for example the way many financial regulations were swept away in the UK in the 1980s, or many examples of deregulation on airline industries (long way still to go), long distance telecoms and haulage industries. Regulation is very much a two edged sword though. Too little and cartels and monopolies are unconstrained, and individual customers are too easily cheated by deceptive practices. Too much regulation and the cost of entry into markets gets too high. It's a constant balancing act.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
governments have no such vested interest. existing corporations do, and yes, they are often successful at regulatory capture. but ... private citizens, families, communities (geographic and of interest) also have a vested (and legitimate) interest in more rules and regulations, verifications, and safety checks, and sometimes (just sometimes) they are successful are getting government to implement these things. when you look at a rule or regulation, you'd better be really sure about its history before you lay the blame at the feet of corporations seeking to restrict freedom.
- simonh 5y ago
  In fact many regulations were fought tooth and nail by corporations. Environmental protection, tobacco health warnings, seat belt mandates, nutritional and content warning labels on food. Limitations on misleading adverts. Many, many more. Arguably these regulations promoted competition. By raising awareness of these issues consumer information regulations helped new entrants promote innovative healthier or safer products. Increasing public confidence in a class of products can even make those products more popular. Absent regulation individual companies can become locked into a race to the bottom that can turn a market into a cess pit. But introduce minimum quality standards and consumer confidence and participation can rise. There are spectacular examples of this in developing countries where effective regulation of financial services builds consumer trust and adoption of banking services. Used car sales and prices in many countries boomed when regulations were brought in to ensure customers were properly informed about the car's history and that the cars passed basic checks, because suddenly customers could trust that they weren't being ripped off. The narrative that regulations are necessarily bad for markets is simply not always true.

simonh 5y ago

Right, and it's up to us to try and vote in politicians that militate against those tendencies, for example the way many financial regulations were swept away in the UK in the 1980s, or many examples of deregulation on airline industries (long way still to go), long distance telecoms and haulage industries. Regulation is very much a two edged sword though. Too little and cartels and monopolies are unconstrained, and individual customers are too easily cheated by deceptive practices. Too much regulation and the cost of entry into markets gets too high. It's a constant balancing act.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

governments have no such vested interest. existing corporations do, and yes, they are often successful at regulatory capture. but ... private citizens, families, communities (geographic and of interest) also have a vested (and legitimate) interest in more rules and regulations, verifications, and safety checks, and sometimes (just sometimes) they are successful are getting government to implement these things. when you look at a rule or regulation, you'd better be really sure about its history before you lay the blame at the feet of corporations seeking to restrict freedom.

simonh 5y ago
In fact many regulations were fought tooth and nail by corporations. Environmental protection, tobacco health warnings, seat belt mandates, nutritional and content warning labels on food. Limitations on misleading adverts. Many, many more. Arguably these regulations promoted competition. By raising awareness of these issues consumer information regulations helped new entrants promote innovative healthier or safer products. Increasing public confidence in a class of products can even make those products more popular. Absent regulation individual companies can become locked into a race to the bottom that can turn a market into a cess pit. But introduce minimum quality standards and consumer confidence and participation can rise. There are spectacular examples of this in developing countries where effective regulation of financial services builds consumer trust and adoption of banking services. Used car sales and prices in many countries boomed when regulations were brought in to ensure customers were properly informed about the car's history and that the cars passed basic checks, because suddenly customers could trust that they weren't being ripped off. The narrative that regulations are necessarily bad for markets is simply not always true.