I’m saying that both of the matters are the same. The fact that there is regulation, but that it is ineffective partially through corruption is part of the same apparatus that keeps politically connected organizations afloat when they should have failed. To let them collapse would have shocked our economy, but to prop them back up should make it evident that the banking industry is no form of free market.
For banking, the only regulations I would like to see strengthened would be those that bring transparency so that consumers can make informed decisions.
Sure you can. Two wrongs don’t make a right (except if you are a far right Liebertarian) and you change the system to prevent that first wrong.
Are you aware that in neighbouring Canada there were much stronger regulations on banks and no subprime lending crisis? It’s not rocket science. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland
Sure you can. The economic crisis happened after government oversight was reduced. The problem was a reduction in government regulation and you can’t fix that by reducing government regulation further.
Libertarians have one-track minds - they blame everything bad on the government. So if the government is reduced and problems occur, they figure the solution is to further reduce the government. If the problems grow larger, their solution is to shrink the government more. If the problems keep getting bigger, their solution is calls to keep making the government smaller.
I’m not claiming the government is the solution to every problem. But I’m also not claiming the free market is the solution to every problem. But I do try to be pragmatic - if we try something and it isn’t working, that’s usually a sign we should try something else.
It’s even more insidious than this. Exaggerating slightly, we can say America has two major political parties:
[ul][li] A right-wing party which allows government regulation to weaken – its symbol is the Donkey.[/li][li] A collection of imbeciles and lunatics whose answer to everything is “Cut Taxes; Go to War; Persecute Homosexuals.”[/li][/ul]
In an Orwellian “Ignorance is Truth” twist the imbecunatics label the right-wingers as Socialists and thus conflate too little government with too much.
(I apologize to any actual lunatics reading this thread for comparing you to Republicans.)
Piffle. I already live in a society where the police go after those who look different, where doors are slammed in faces as politely but firmly as possible. I’m for more regulation, always. I can cope with authoritarianism, I grew up fundie.
But the best answer is to let people do things, while teaching them how, & making sure they don’t screw it up. That’s not easy, & it requires cooperation instead of competition. But civilization depends on it. Arguments about “freedom” meaning unregulated chaos, & “security” meaning lack of opportunity miss the point.
It always comes back to money, doesn’t it? OK, smart guy, consider this. The regulatory state is corruptible; so are independent accrediting agencies. But a functional regulatory state might be better for your bottom line, as it 1) pools everybody’s research budget into one complex of agencies whose regulations have teeth; 2) has the power to completely shut down the worst performers, thus saving the money consumers waste on them; & 3) most counterintuitively: by being able to coerce funding through taxes, it is able to pay middle-income salaries to its agents, allowing them 3a) to work full-time and gain expertise, thus improving the efficacy of the work, and 3b) to make decent salaries for their time invested, thus increasing the number of citizens with disposable income. Add up all these effects, and you may end up well in the black.
I’d say it’s a fucking certainty. Insecurity is NOT freedom.
Well, it may be the failure of an under-regulated, wrongly-regulated, or simply badly-regulated market. In any case, materially good outcomes are not the same thing as greater “market freedom”/“negative liberty”.
And if they lack the accounting expertise to tell the difference between options, what then? I suppose even mathphobes often have someone to turn to from whom they may take advice, but government can go beyond an advisory role to actually shutting down the bad actors–if regulatory agencies are given that power.
Why should we leave a bad actor–a swindler or not-quite-swindler–in business, and instead denounce & downsize the public servant who would stop the swindle?
See why the left think the right is criminal?
Sing three bars of “Sister Moon,” draw some funky Wonder Woman bracelets on the icon of your choice, & we’re good. Go in peace my son.
The libertarian in the thread is telling us that we’re fools to trust government testing of water. Instead, a better system would be to:
Get our water from a private supplier
1a. Find out that private supplier’s ratings from an ‘impartial’ third party, which won’t do it for free, so is either being paid by me or by said water supplier
1b. Find out whether we the impartial third party is trustworthy. Presumably by seeking assistance from a fourth party.
1c. Goto 1a.
Assuming we’ve broken free of that loop we are supposed to “take responsibility for ourselves” by then buying water filters and water testing kits.
Of course, we can’t trust the water filters or water testing kits. Doing so wouldn’t be taking responsibility for ourselves. So, that means we need to:
Research our water filter manufacturer
2a. Find out our water filter manufacturer’s ratings from an ‘impartial’ third party, which won’t do it for free, so is either being paid by me or by said water supplier
2b. Find out whether we the impartial third party is trustworthy. Presumably by seeking assistance from a fourth party.
2c. Goto 2a.
And then we get to do it again for our water testing kit! All for a glass of water.
Well, I know people who feel like they need to do that anyway. They think their government sucks, & is untrustworthy, & is just defrauding them. And sometimes these accusations are true.
But that doesn’t mean that people in government should give up on responsible regulation, not that* legislators* should undermine its capacity, nor that I as a voter should vote for anti-regulation politicians that make government less helpful.
I’m such an anarchist I went all the way through and around to progressivism: Government will always be a coercive racket. May as well make them do something useful.
I want you to look into your libertarian crystal ball and stop me from doing the following:
I’m rich. I want to kill people cause I’m a bastard. I open up a restaurant (or, to make it easier, I work at restaurant). I taint the food, not with deliberate poison which would be criminal, but simply lax safety and health regulations. I serve people spoiled food, don’t clean up, and store ingredients in dirty places. People die.
By your market mechanism, I’m found out and people stop coming to the restaurant. But then what? The people I’ve injured are still injured, some of them are dead. If I have money, I can simply open up another restaurant or get another job somewhere else where they don’t know me. You’ve essentially given me a free pass to kill people through negligence
And no, you cannot sue me or have me arrested. You said it was silly to assume there was no police or tort system to punish people, but you forget one thing: in order for someone to be arrested, you have prove they broke a law. Since you’re against regulations, what law am I breaking if I serve people bad food? If they get sick, it’s their own fault! The same problem appears when you want to sue me. What law have I broken? What are you suing me for? I can just as easily say you chose to eat in my restaurant, so its your fault.
See, without actual laws and regulations, people cannot be compensated for damage. You can’t sue someone if they broke no law
Don’t you see…everyone will know you are a bad restauranteur, and no one will visit your new ventures. And those that do deserve it because they didn’t do basic research. Caveat emptor.
Libertarian society is great for those who feel the Earth is too populated and are wholely amoral. Personally, I’m not wholly amoral…yet.
But if I feel the earth is too populated and am wholly amoral, why would I not actively purge much of mankind? Libertarians are too focused on individual rights to effectively cull the population in a consciously directed fashion, I’m afraid. Also they’re against environmental regulation, which means they work against the quality of life for those of us who would survive a purge.
Immoral might be a better word, except that these people are driven by morality. It’s just a morality without eye to consequence. Sort of like Lawful Neutral that thinks it’s Chaotic Good.
Go in peace my son.