This attack on regulation and the alternatives/solution you offer strike me as simplistic. It's equivalent in spirit to saying,
"The rule of law is too restrictive. We should remove all laws and then people should just not murder eachother and stop stealing. Let's all be nice please."
People will probably always steal and always murder, un…
This attack on regulation and the alternatives/solution you offer strike me as simplistic. It's equivalent in spirit to saying,
"The rule of law is too restrictive. We should remove all laws and then people should just not murder eachother and stop stealing. Let's all be nice please."
People will probably always steal and always murder, unless maybe we live in a post scarcity world, and even then it will continue to happen.
And the same applies to companies. Left unchecked, they will always try to maximize their profits and gain market advantages. And market advantages are not productive. In fact they destroy productivity as it's harder to make any progress without the monopoly hand slapping you away. It's not a plot, it's not a conspiracy, it's not that these people are evil (well some are) - it's just that the incentives are there pushing them towards this way of doing business. They'll prioritize growth to satisfy shareholders.
Unregulated companies do uncompetitive things and hinder the productiveness of entire sectors.
I'm not in favour of extreme regulation, but saying that all regulation is useless let's just be nice to each other and make better software is really unconvincing to me.
>The regulation-proponent never addresses that use of regulatory force is anti-production by definition—particularly anti-production-which-is-seen-as-bad—and furthermore how anti-productive behavior can ever be contorted to instead be productive.
Perhaps I misunderstood then and I'm conflating you calling it useless with calling it anti-production. Nevertheless, the point stands that you believe regulation is unproductive? I believe otherwise and wrote a comment. I may be wrong and one of the brainwashed regulators who loves the public sector. I do agree with some of your criticism of regulation and overly zealous regulation, I simply voiced that your alternatives were unconvincing.
Maybe if you specified cases where you think regulation works then readers like me wouldn't wrongly believe you think regulation is useless. Unless you really do believe it's useless.
I think the point he was trying to make was that in a market with a lack of regulation, the best will rise to the top. Due to that, though big corporations (Note they probably got big because of a better product) like google or apple may rise for a time, other people will innovate and create a better product. Regulation, like he says, can artificially prop up a lesser product simply because it does not fit within the bounds of the regulation. I will admit, I agree with his points, and my belief is that the world we want in the future cannot be made by legislation that restricts, but by a belief in what is the right way to act and standing by those principles. Not purely anarchy, because there does need to be law and order. I think two good resources to look into (These are where I got some of this belief from) would be "Everything I want to do is illegal: War stories from the local food front" By Joel Salatin (On direct examples of how regulation has inhibited the small farm front. Pretty fun yet infuriating read.), and "The Law" By Frederic Bastiat (On how law and the government should operate). The law should exist to keep secure the person, property, and their liberty.
This attack on regulation and the alternatives/solution you offer strike me as simplistic. It's equivalent in spirit to saying,
"The rule of law is too restrictive. We should remove all laws and then people should just not murder eachother and stop stealing. Let's all be nice please."
People will probably always steal and always murder, unless maybe we live in a post scarcity world, and even then it will continue to happen.
And the same applies to companies. Left unchecked, they will always try to maximize their profits and gain market advantages. And market advantages are not productive. In fact they destroy productivity as it's harder to make any progress without the monopoly hand slapping you away. It's not a plot, it's not a conspiracy, it's not that these people are evil (well some are) - it's just that the incentives are there pushing them towards this way of doing business. They'll prioritize growth to satisfy shareholders.
Unregulated companies do uncompetitive things and hinder the productiveness of entire sectors.
I'm not in favour of extreme regulation, but saying that all regulation is useless let's just be nice to each other and make better software is really unconvincing to me.
> saying that all regulation is useless let's just be nice to each other and make better software is really unconvincing to me.
Well, that isn't what I said. You should try turning your ideological blinders off.
>The regulation-proponent never addresses that use of regulatory force is anti-production by definition—particularly anti-production-which-is-seen-as-bad—and furthermore how anti-productive behavior can ever be contorted to instead be productive.
Perhaps I misunderstood then and I'm conflating you calling it useless with calling it anti-production. Nevertheless, the point stands that you believe regulation is unproductive? I believe otherwise and wrote a comment. I may be wrong and one of the brainwashed regulators who loves the public sector. I do agree with some of your criticism of regulation and overly zealous regulation, I simply voiced that your alternatives were unconvincing.
Maybe if you specified cases where you think regulation works then readers like me wouldn't wrongly believe you think regulation is useless. Unless you really do believe it's useless.
I think the point he was trying to make was that in a market with a lack of regulation, the best will rise to the top. Due to that, though big corporations (Note they probably got big because of a better product) like google or apple may rise for a time, other people will innovate and create a better product. Regulation, like he says, can artificially prop up a lesser product simply because it does not fit within the bounds of the regulation. I will admit, I agree with his points, and my belief is that the world we want in the future cannot be made by legislation that restricts, but by a belief in what is the right way to act and standing by those principles. Not purely anarchy, because there does need to be law and order. I think two good resources to look into (These are where I got some of this belief from) would be "Everything I want to do is illegal: War stories from the local food front" By Joel Salatin (On direct examples of how regulation has inhibited the small farm front. Pretty fun yet infuriating read.), and "The Law" By Frederic Bastiat (On how law and the government should operate). The law should exist to keep secure the person, property, and their liberty.