3 ms·

I'm against all regulations that impact mutually voluntary economic interactions between consenting adults (so every regulation with the exception of those rela

I'm against all regulations that impact mutually voluntary economic interactions between consenting adults (so every regulation with the exception of those relating to interactions with minors and the environment), so I believe we are disagreeing. I fully support targeted government intervention that does not violate the freedom to contract, i.e. is not a regulation, to produce public goods. Where we agree is that we both believe that some level of government intervention is required for optimal economic function. I just restrict the type of government intervention that I support to types that don't suppress the free market. Yes, markets are artificial, in the same way that a peaceful society where murder is prohibited is artificial. Doesn't mean they are not beneficial. >>That is why health care free markets don't work. When you are having a heart attach you aren't shopping around for a bargain price. Emergency care is a small subset of healthcare spending, that should be government provided. The rest is far better provided by a free market. The example of the cosmetic procedures industry, and how it vastly outperforms the healthcare industry with the advantage of being more market based than the latter, shows how beneficial market freedom is: https://www.ncpathinktank.org/commentaries/the-market-for-medical-care-should-work-like-cosmetic-surgery https://www.ncpathinktank.org/commentaries/the-market-for-me... The industries at the top are the most government run/subsidized, and the ones at the bottom the most consumer/market driven: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-or-century-3/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-or-century-3... Healthcare is not exception to the rule that more freedom in the market generates more efficiency and innovation.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
In this "regulations that impact mutually voluntary economic interactions between consenting adults". I think you are missing the part where there are very few interactions between individuals. Since the corporation was granted person hood, and the bulk of all interactions are really between consenting corporations, actual real humans are left out. If me a human individual consents to interact with a corporation that is also a consenting person, it isn't really equal, or free. The corporation can do a number of things, like swamping the human with legal costs, non-stop lawsuits. Or on grander schemes, maybe the corporation can buy up all the food or land in an area, and force a population to capitulate and come to terms with whatever advantageous agreement the corporation desires. Your view of the individual, while romantically desirable. I can't argue against it, it sounds nice. It doesn't actually work in practice, because the free market is NOT made up of 'consenting adults'. It is made up giant constructs, and humans under duress, forced to make due to survive. And when it gets bad enough, the humans take their 'freedom' and rise up to protest, and society either collapses or maybe some half measure like unions is the outcome.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  >I think you are missing the part where there are very few interactions between individuals. Since the corporation was granted person hood, and the bulk of all interactions are really between consenting corporations, actual real humans are left out. You can't use mental gymnastics to justify regulations. Corporations are just legal arrangements between individuals. There is a chain of voluntary interactions linking the shareholders to any action the corporation takes. To restrict corporate behavior is to restrict the right of people to coordinate their actions through legal arrangements like corporations. >The corporation can do a number of things, like swamping the human with legal costs, non-stop lawsuits. If powerful entities, whether people acting collectively as corporations, or just wealthy individuals, are able to do this, then that is a problem with the legal system, and the solution should be targeted at fixing that problem. These problems should not be used as an excuse to create laws that violate the right to freely contract. In practice, these laws and the principles behind them end up being used by the same corporations that you've turned into your bogeyman, to massively exploit the population.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    That is all very semi-mathematically correct, in the utopia of economics text books with all individuals are rational with equal with perfect knowledge and resources. What actually happens in practice, humans are not rational, they have to eat, and all decisions are compromised. Corporations are a group of individuals, but I've seen plenty of middle managers, that have to hit their numbers, are feeling the pressure, and they will definitely break laws, dump waste, take advantage of underlings. And, the underlings, they have bills, have to eat, they go along with it. It is pressure all the way down through the organization, nobody is free to make 'contracts' between individuals. There are no free decisions. Guess overall, think you are missing the the power dynamic and how that plays out in groups. LOL - Groups of monkeys.
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      I agree that these are all problems, but again, I think the solution is to focus on fixing those problems directly, and not let special interests use these problems as the pretense for imposing their long-desired restrictions on the free market.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

In this "regulations that impact mutually voluntary economic interactions between consenting adults". I think you are missing the part where there are very few interactions between individuals. Since the corporation was granted person hood, and the bulk of all interactions are really between consenting corporations, actual real humans are left out. If me a human individual consents to interact with a corporation that is also a consenting person, it isn't really equal, or free. The corporation can do a number of things, like swamping the human with legal costs, non-stop lawsuits. Or on grander schemes, maybe the corporation can buy up all the food or land in an area, and force a population to capitulate and come to terms with whatever advantageous agreement the corporation desires. Your view of the individual, while romantically desirable. I can't argue against it, it sounds nice. It doesn't actually work in practice, because the free market is NOT made up of 'consenting adults'. It is made up giant constructs, and humans under duress, forced to make due to survive. And when it gets bad enough, the humans take their 'freedom' and rise up to protest, and society either collapses or maybe some half measure like unions is the outcome.

ETH_start 3y ago
>I think you are missing the part where there are very few interactions between individuals. Since the corporation was granted person hood, and the bulk of all interactions are really between consenting corporations, actual real humans are left out. You can't use mental gymnastics to justify regulations. Corporations are just legal arrangements between individuals. There is a chain of voluntary interactions linking the shareholders to any action the corporation takes. To restrict corporate behavior is to restrict the right of people to coordinate their actions through legal arrangements like corporations. >The corporation can do a number of things, like swamping the human with legal costs, non-stop lawsuits. If powerful entities, whether people acting collectively as corporations, or just wealthy individuals, are able to do this, then that is a problem with the legal system, and the solution should be targeted at fixing that problem. These problems should not be used as an excuse to create laws that violate the right to freely contract. In practice, these laws and the principles behind them end up being used by the same corporations that you've turned into your bogeyman, to massively exploit the population.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  That is all very semi-mathematically correct, in the utopia of economics text books with all individuals are rational with equal with perfect knowledge and resources. What actually happens in practice, humans are not rational, they have to eat, and all decisions are compromised. Corporations are a group of individuals, but I've seen plenty of middle managers, that have to hit their numbers, are feeling the pressure, and they will definitely break laws, dump waste, take advantage of underlings. And, the underlings, they have bills, have to eat, they go along with it. It is pressure all the way down through the organization, nobody is free to make 'contracts' between individuals. There are no free decisions. Guess overall, think you are missing the the power dynamic and how that plays out in groups. LOL - Groups of monkeys.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    I agree that these are all problems, but again, I think the solution is to focus on fixing those problems directly, and not let special interests use these problems as the pretense for imposing their long-desired restrictions on the free market.