Have any noted "free market, deregulation" advocates changed their tune?

[IdahoMauleMan]

@Spartydog

I think that’s my point. There is always the criminal mind that finds ways to exploit the theory for their personal gain. Therefore, you have to construct limitations and penalties to prevent that occurrence. You can’t just stick to your base theory. That’s where regulation comes in.

Civilized society is not “law of the jungle”. We need rules, regulation and law enforcement to protect those that don’t have the resources to protect themselves. If that is not what you want then have at it. There is always someone who is smarter, stronger, faster, better looking, well resourced and able to pound you into submission. Do you want a world of one Top Dog or a more egalitarian society that makes life a positive experience for a variety of people with an innumerable amount of talents?

I feel like we’re confusing laws with regulations. Or maybe I’m the one who is confused.

A ‘law’ to me is something that protects my rights. Someone cannot point a gun at my head and take my wallet under threat of force. Someone cannot sign a contract that says they will deliver X if I pay them Y, and then not be subject to prosecution in a court of law for fraud if they do not deliver X when I pay them Y.

‘Regulation’ (to me, anyway) is a restriction that prevents a voluntary transaction from otherwise taking place between two consenting parties. I would like to lend money to Sam next door at an annual rate of 100%. Sam is willing to borrow from me and pay an annual rate of 100%. However, a usury law is passed in my state that says interest rates are capped at 40%. Therefore, I do not lend to Sam, and Sam does not borrow from me. And I would argue there is an overall loss to the economy as a result.

And yes, I suppose that it is now illegal to act in contravention of that regulation. So I guess it is the same as a law.

But the two words mean two very different things to me. Am I the only one here?