Quote:
Quote by: MplsBison  I advocate a system where any restaurant stupid enough to keep a dirty kitchen deserves to be sued into closing down.
When did I say it was?
Increased economic productivity does not justify government regulation. |
If what you advocated made that happen, we might have a reasonable discussion. But putting laws with no enforcement behind them "on the books" serves only one purpose. It makes it appear someone is attempting to solve the problem while they are in practice and fact, doing nothing to solve the problem. It costs nothing (no inspectors to pay, etc) allows law makers to attend glitzy signing ceremonies and proclaim their dedication for PR purposes and leaves citizens just as vulnerable to the whims of those who care only about personal profit.
The thrust of the OP was that lazie-faire Capitolits always claim that regulation hampers economic productivity because it "interfers with the free market" and my point was that a "free market" was meant to respond to pressure from customers, and since citizens are the customers, why should citizens not be able to pressure the market though a free, democratic government with the regulation they deem necessary? I do not want you to justfy my point (that regulation in a free system is nothing more than natural market control and an essential piece of a free market's natural balance) but rather, if you are going to take a position counter to mine, explain why my position is faulty. You have not done that. You have said it is faulty, but not provided any reason behind that assumption. You just say "Regulation is bad." Why? What benefit do you gain from hampering the will of the consumers of the market by removing the most efficient means at their disposal to ensure that their desires are brought to bear on the market?