3 ms·
> In (fairly) common parlance, "regulation" means governmental rules that violate individual sovereignty. Common parlance is found on Wikipedia: "A regulation
by 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 agoMy 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.