4 ms·

Actually the opposite is true. Only trough regulation you can create nonviolent free market competition. Otherwise, you end up with military competition as the

Actually the opposite is true. Only trough regulation you can create nonviolent free market competition. Otherwise, you end up with military competition as the easiest way to win is to dominate and subjugate opponents trough raw force. Slavery and colonization are this types of free market distortions when unrestricted by regulation. So, regulations are necessary part of free markets. The question is what regulations are good and what regulations are bad. There are empirical and game theoretical examples where regulations create better outcomes than nonviolent free market competition. There are games where the tragedy of the commons occur i.e. Nash equilibrium creates bad outcome [0]. This is also true in the real world e.g. collapse of the Atlantic northwest cod fishery. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wNj9hOIt9g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wNj9hOIt9g [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_northwest_cod_fishery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_north...

nickpp 5y ago
Having a rule of law is not a regulation, is the most basic fundamental prerequisite to having a functioning modern, democratic society. Free markets are built on top of that and regulations come on top of free markets. And free markets imply free people - slavery is the opposite of that. Taxing externalities is also necessary, and it's tax, not a regulation. But that is something we're still working on, with little success it seems. See the carbon/pollution international issues with China, Russia, Australia.
- Isinlor 5y ago
  You are bending words like regulation and tax to fit your preconceptions in way that disagrees with how other people understand them. Also, a simple tax can not solve the tragedy of the commons for fisheries as long as fishing will remain profitable. Nash equilibrium involving full exploitation remains as long as there is a profit. Fish are not an externality that can be reduced to avoid taxation, but the objective. While cap on fishing will work.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

nickpp 5y ago

Having a rule of law is not a regulation, is the most basic fundamental prerequisite to having a functioning modern, democratic society. Free markets are built on top of that and regulations come on top of free markets. And free markets imply free people - slavery is the opposite of that. Taxing externalities is also necessary, and it's tax, not a regulation. But that is something we're still working on, with little success it seems. See the carbon/pollution international issues with China, Russia, Australia.

Isinlor 5y ago
You are bending words like regulation and tax to fit your preconceptions in way that disagrees with how other people understand them. Also, a simple tax can not solve the tragedy of the commons for fisheries as long as fishing will remain profitable. Nash equilibrium involving full exploitation remains as long as there is a profit. Fish are not an externality that can be reduced to avoid taxation, but the objective. While cap on fishing will work.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]