[lsbskins1]

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.[/quote]

She - thank you very much, was saying exactly what she (I) said. I said that many people make the argument that government has no rightful place in regulating business because it is unwarrented interference in the market. I pulled nothing out of thin air. If you do not hold to that logic, then I am not talking to you. If you do, I am. Are you claiming that nobody says that government regulation (as in OSHA standards or EPA pollution regulations) is unwarrented and leads to "unintended", ie, bad consequences? Did I really pull that out of thin air? If I did, there are literally thousands of sites you can hit with a Google search that have suddenly replicated my imaginings and are back dated by those people who work for Big Brother to make it look like someone else said it before I posted. And I must be Big Brother, because it tends to support my "fantasy".

But, really, my point is not that regulation is beneficial and just BECAUSE the people have asked for it. My point is that regulation is beneficial and just AND does not mean power is taken away from "the invisible hand", because it is really the same hand. That means the hand is legitimate, not that it is incapable of harm itself.

And let me make this quite plain as well. Nothing that opperates as an institution is above corruption. So, I do not view regulatory agencies as the good guys and corporations as the bad guys. They both have the capacity for harm and they both have the capacity for beneficence. I do not seek to elevate one over the other, but to recognize that they are both necessary, serve an equally important purpose and both need to be in a relative power ballance. Just another example of effective checking of power in my book.