Quote:
As for being worth it to the consumer, how do you think we determine that? We determine it by electing officials to decide what is in our interest as consumers.
That's exactly what the original poster was saying- that such regulations are democratic.
So you do realize you've as much as admitted that regulation of production is sometimes needed, is sometimes justifiable for health and safety reasons, and that it is democratic to impose such regulations, right? So why are you even arguing? Apparently, you agree with the premise in the original post. The poster was asking people to justify a position of opposing regulation on principle, which would mean all regulation must adhere to the principle, not just the regulation you don't personally approve of. When you make such exceptions, the principle falls.
Bottom line- nobody has been able to refute the original poster's argument.
|
[/quote]
The original poster's argument was that state can, and ought to regulate, because it is exercisng its democratic pregotives. It assumed that such regulation is beneficial and just, because the people have so decided on that course of action.
It hasn't been refuted because nobody makes that argument. The original post was pulling things out of thin air. Hence, my bafflement as to what she, or he, was going on and on about.
One can however, refute the assumption of the original post that regulation is the white horse and industry (corporations, business, capitalism, whatever) is the villain.