Quote:
Quote by: 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. |
Okay, but first you have to prove that state regulations embody "democratic prerogatives" -- which strikes me as a dubious assumption. It's like saying that, just because wages exist, they ought to exist and be regulated. To me, what you say lacks an understanding of conditionality. Your argument is simply locked into the status quo.
Yes, it can generally be said that regulations should exist under certain conditions for certain reasons, but it doesn't mean this need is absolute. For example, in a state-capitalist system we need wages and regulations, but in a different society people may be able to act for different reasons, under other circumstances.
Grandpa h.