3 ms·

Except it's not a free market. Those same regulators also give tax breaks to large inefficient corporations and tell small businesses they must close down for

Except it's not a free market. Those same regulators also give tax breaks to large inefficient corporations and tell small businesses they must close down for arbitrary intangible public health reasons, while the large corporations can remain open. In both examples, it's the regulators whom are detrimental to society, not the free market. Virtually everyone that champions regulations are not for regulation, but for imposing political will in a way favorable to them. I know this because these people freak out and think it's the end of the world when there's a seat change in politics and the very same regulators they loved are now imposing political will in a way that's unfavorable to them. They also seem to believe in democracy, but only if when they win.

stanleykm 3y ago
The free market cant solve big societal issues we are staring down the barrel of. We need coordination at the highest levels of human civilization and not some handy wavey hope a million monkeys will reach the answer.
- infamouscow 3y ago
  You might want to prepare for the worst then. That's probably not what you were expecting, but if that's really the case, it probably doesn't help that society is hyper-polarized. It also doesn't help that the main political opponent in the next election is being railroaded by the court system. If the idea is to unify and coordinate to solve problems, alienating and demonizing 70M voters and half of the country is not the way to do so. The message half the country hears and thinks is: when push comes to shove, the other half prefer crushing political competition by any means necessary rather than find common ground and work together. Those are the rules one side is playing by, and it shouldn't be a surprise when the other side does the same, or takes their ball and goes home.
bdcravens 3y ago
While you're not incorrect about the flaws of regulation, none of what you said is an argument for laissez-faire.
- infamouscow 3y ago
  Laissez-faire is the default. It's only through the indoctrination of young impressionable minds by the state that people become persuaded by arguments the state should intrude into things.
  - bdcravens 3y ago
    I would think it's injuries and deaths from the lack of safety and standards that would be far more persuasive. It's never about trusting the state; it's understanding that unchecked capitalism is less trustworthy. That's not to say it's inherently evil, but quite to the contrary: profit is inevitably self-serving, and only outside forces can ensure that the needs of others are considered.
    - infamouscow 3y ago
      I'm confused. The only reason every criminal stepping foot on my property doesn't have their head on a pike is because the state will involve itself in their failure to prevent criminals from committing crimes on my property. My property would be drastically safer if the state was not involved. You might disagree with my methods of deterring crime, but 1. I don't believe in democracy. My rights are not subject to vote. 2. There is literally no rational explanation why anyone should relinquish their natural rights and delegate them to a state. This is what The Concept of the Political by Carl Schmitt discusses at length. Schmitt is often dismissed by Western academics because of his later association with the Nazi Party, but it's a cop-out for a serious introspection of what his works said about the underlying nature of society and human nature. It frightens them, to put it mildly. Hitler was only able to take power after grasping the implications of his work. 3. I would bet my life savings that if I could get away with leaving the heads of criminals on pikes, along with other unspeakably heinous things, there would be a large drop in crime. Most won't dispute this, which begs the question why does the state allow criminal behavior to prosper when it costs far less to not get involved.

stanleykm 3y ago

The free market cant solve big societal issues we are staring down the barrel of. We need coordination at the highest levels of human civilization and not some handy wavey hope a million monkeys will reach the answer.

infamouscow 3y ago
You might want to prepare for the worst then. That's probably not what you were expecting, but if that's really the case, it probably doesn't help that society is hyper-polarized. It also doesn't help that the main political opponent in the next election is being railroaded by the court system. If the idea is to unify and coordinate to solve problems, alienating and demonizing 70M voters and half of the country is not the way to do so. The message half the country hears and thinks is: when push comes to shove, the other half prefer crushing political competition by any means necessary rather than find common ground and work together. Those are the rules one side is playing by, and it shouldn't be a surprise when the other side does the same, or takes their ball and goes home.

bdcravens 3y ago

While you're not incorrect about the flaws of regulation, none of what you said is an argument for laissez-faire.

infamouscow 3y ago
Laissez-faire is the default. It's only through the indoctrination of young impressionable minds by the state that people become persuaded by arguments the state should intrude into things.
- bdcravens 3y ago
  I would think it's injuries and deaths from the lack of safety and standards that would be far more persuasive. It's never about trusting the state; it's understanding that unchecked capitalism is less trustworthy. That's not to say it's inherently evil, but quite to the contrary: profit is inevitably self-serving, and only outside forces can ensure that the needs of others are considered.
  - infamouscow 3y ago
    I'm confused. The only reason every criminal stepping foot on my property doesn't have their head on a pike is because the state will involve itself in their failure to prevent criminals from committing crimes on my property. My property would be drastically safer if the state was not involved. You might disagree with my methods of deterring crime, but 1. I don't believe in democracy. My rights are not subject to vote. 2. There is literally no rational explanation why anyone should relinquish their natural rights and delegate them to a state. This is what The Concept of the Political by Carl Schmitt discusses at length. Schmitt is often dismissed by Western academics because of his later association with the Nazi Party, but it's a cop-out for a serious introspection of what his works said about the underlying nature of society and human nature. It frightens them, to put it mildly. Hitler was only able to take power after grasping the implications of his work. 3. I would bet my life savings that if I could get away with leaving the heads of criminals on pikes, along with other unspeakably heinous things, there would be a large drop in crime. Most won't dispute this, which begs the question why does the state allow criminal behavior to prosper when it costs far less to not get involved.