4 ms·

> But... International rules that enforce a reduction in national rules (deregulation) which will empower multi-nationals is not the contradiction you appear t

by justsee 12y ago

> But... International rules that enforce a reduction in national rules (deregulation) which will empower multi-nationals is not the contradiction you appear to think it is. > These multi-nationals are purely a product of regulaiton (in this case, more specifically, regulatory capture). Well they're purely a product of regulation only in the broadest sense: without regulations (rules and laws) you wouldn't have international trade, and so there would be no multi-nationals (or civilized societies). Your more specific case ('regulatory capture') is an example of weakened regulation through infiltration / corruption so your statement appears to read: Multinationals are a purely a product of regulation (more specifically, weakened regulation). > Without regulation, there would be thousands of healthy medium-size banks in the US, as there apparently used to be. What do you mean by 'Without regulation'? If taken literally it would be impossible to define what a 'bank' is, so I assume your definition of 'Without regulation' involves regulations - which makes for a very confusing definition. You imply there is an optimal outcome (thousands of medium-sized banks) being suppressed through regulation. What regulations force all banks to move quickly to a few larger banks? Usually these sorts of market regulations are about stopping that practice: for instance in Australia there is a 'four pillars policy' which stops mergers of the four largest banks. Without this regulation there would be less competition. > Overall, to characterize this as "deregulation" is completely sloppy thinking. We are never going to get a better situation when people think sloppily like this. To do so is, in practice, a moral crime. It supports maintaining the status quo through confusion. Characterising deregulation as deregulation is sloppy thinking? Let's back up: there is an international agreement which aims to enforce further deregulation of nation states... and characterising this as deregulation is sloppy thinking?

javert 12y ago
You are conflating two different and commonly-used meanings of the word "regulation." In (fairly) common parlance, "regulation" means governmental rules that violate individual sovereignty. For examples, laws like Sarbanes-Oxley. These are laws under which the government initiates force against market participants to try to force a desired outcome. Proper laws merely protect individual sovereignty. For example, you can't use force against someone, whether physically or through possessing something that violates a contract with them (which is fraud). Only the government can use force, and only in retaliation to protect sovereignty. The ethical basis for this distinction is that it is in everyone'e self-interest to be protected from the initiaion of force in general, while it is against everyone's self-interest to be vulnerable to the initiaition of force, in general. Thus, regulatory laws are wrong. P.S. If Australia only have four banks, instead of forty or four hundred, it is because of regulation (in my sense of the word).
- justsee 12y ago
  > In (fairly) common parlance, "regulation" means governmental rules that violate individual sovereignty. Common parlance is found on Wikipedia: "A regulation is a rule or law designed to control or govern conduct." The narrower, ideological definition you supply may be to your liking but isn't (even fairly) common parlance. A clearer term for you to use would simply be 'bad regulation'. Your definition also implies that governmental rules that protect individual sovereignty (or don't impact upon it) are not the 'regulation' you protest against, and a clearer term for that would simply be 'good regulation'. There are obviously regulations which protect individual sovereignty: environmental laws stopping anyone or any entity dumping toxic waste which impacts on the health and well-being of those individuals is but one of many obvious examples. So there are good regulations and bad regulations, and you are against bad regulations, but you choose to call them simply 'regulations' which is rather confusing. You also conclude: 'Thus, regulatory laws are wrong'. Better to use the clearer, more correct statement 'Thus, bad regulatory laws are wrong'. Very uncontroversial and agreeable. I think it could actually be argued that redefining a term like 'regulation' as you are doing is actually harmful to individual sovereignty. The common meaning of 'regulation' also covers regulation that is protective of individual sovereignty, and trying to promulgate a pejorative sense of the term merely enables moochers and looters to further hijack the term to weaken those regulations which protect individual sovereignty.
  - javert 12y ago
    My usage is absolutely common parlance. For instance, the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence are not considered to be "regulation." Your proposed terms of "good regulation" and "bad regulation" ignore my explanation of support or violation of sovereignty and are just a poor attempt to discredit my (correct) position.
    - justsee 12y ago
      > My usage is absolutely common parlance. Maybe in your particular social or intellectual circles, but not in common parlance. This is obvious by comparing the dictionary definition with your definition: the former is general and widely understood, while the later is values-laden and requires an appreciation of a particular philosophical position. > For instance, the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence are not considered to be "regulation." They are by definition regulations. If you read the definition of regulation, you would have to agree they are regulations. > Your proposed terms of "good regulation" and "bad regulation" ignore my explanation of support or violation of sovereignty and are just a poor attempt to discredit my (correct) position. They specifically acknowledge and address your points around individual sovereignty - your assertions to the contrary indicate you haven't properly read what I wrote. I called out an example of a 'good regulation' by your definition - an environmental law - to show how regulations can support individual sovereignty. Leaving this point unanswered is what discredits your position. However it's clear to me this contortion around the meaning of 'regulation' is something impossible to honestly defend.
nitrogen 12y ago
Well they're purely a product of regulation only in the broadest sense: without regulations (rules and laws) you wouldn't have international trade, and so there would be no multi-nationals (or civilized societies). Has this been demonstrated conclusively? It seems like international trade probably would have come before international law.

by justsee 12y ago

javert 12y ago

You are conflating two different and commonly-used meanings of the word "regulation." In (fairly) common parlance, "regulation" means governmental rules that violate individual sovereignty. For examples, laws like Sarbanes-Oxley. These are laws under which the government initiates force against market participants to try to force a desired outcome. Proper laws merely protect individual sovereignty. For example, you can't use force against someone, whether physically or through possessing something that violates a contract with them (which is fraud). Only the government can use force, and only in retaliation to protect sovereignty. The ethical basis for this distinction is that it is in everyone'e self-interest to be protected from the initiaion of force in general, while it is against everyone's self-interest to be vulnerable to the initiaition of force, in general. Thus, regulatory laws are wrong. P.S. If Australia only have four banks, instead of forty or four hundred, it is because of regulation (in my sense of the word).

justsee 12y ago
> In (fairly) common parlance, "regulation" means governmental rules that violate individual sovereignty. Common parlance is found on Wikipedia: "A regulation is a rule or law designed to control or govern conduct." The narrower, ideological definition you supply may be to your liking but isn't (even fairly) common parlance. A clearer term for you to use would simply be 'bad regulation'. Your definition also implies that governmental rules that protect individual sovereignty (or don't impact upon it) are not the 'regulation' you protest against, and a clearer term for that would simply be 'good regulation'. There are obviously regulations which protect individual sovereignty: environmental laws stopping anyone or any entity dumping toxic waste which impacts on the health and well-being of those individuals is but one of many obvious examples. So there are good regulations and bad regulations, and you are against bad regulations, but you choose to call them simply 'regulations' which is rather confusing. You also conclude: 'Thus, regulatory laws are wrong'. Better to use the clearer, more correct statement 'Thus, bad regulatory laws are wrong'. Very uncontroversial and agreeable. I think it could actually be argued that redefining a term like 'regulation' as you are doing is actually harmful to individual sovereignty. The common meaning of 'regulation' also covers regulation that is protective of individual sovereignty, and trying to promulgate a pejorative sense of the term merely enables moochers and looters to further hijack the term to weaken those regulations which protect individual sovereignty.
- javert 12y ago
  My usage is absolutely common parlance. For instance, the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence are not considered to be "regulation." Your proposed terms of "good regulation" and "bad regulation" ignore my explanation of support or violation of sovereignty and are just a poor attempt to discredit my (correct) position.
  - justsee 12y ago
    > My usage is absolutely common parlance. Maybe in your particular social or intellectual circles, but not in common parlance. This is obvious by comparing the dictionary definition with your definition: the former is general and widely understood, while the later is values-laden and requires an appreciation of a particular philosophical position. > For instance, the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence are not considered to be "regulation." They are by definition regulations. If you read the definition of regulation, you would have to agree they are regulations. > Your proposed terms of "good regulation" and "bad regulation" ignore my explanation of support or violation of sovereignty and are just a poor attempt to discredit my (correct) position. They specifically acknowledge and address your points around individual sovereignty - your assertions to the contrary indicate you haven't properly read what I wrote. I called out an example of a 'good regulation' by your definition - an environmental law - to show how regulations can support individual sovereignty. Leaving this point unanswered is what discredits your position. However it's clear to me this contortion around the meaning of 'regulation' is something impossible to honestly defend.

nitrogen 12y ago

Well they're purely a product of regulation only in the broadest sense: without regulations (rules and laws) you wouldn't have international trade, and so there would be no multi-nationals (or civilized societies). Has this been demonstrated conclusively? It seems like international trade probably would have come before international law.