[quote=sdduuuude][quote=XBoxBoy]But while I’m losing my taste for libertarianism, I’m totally baffled as to how to best regulate markets.[/quote]

I suggest they are best regulated based on protecting people’s rights,[/quote]

But you’re still suggesting that regulation should come from the government? If so, how do you control the corruption of the government by interests that want to regulate based on what’s in their interests?

See, I don’t disagree that people’s rights are a good basis for devising regulation. But if the regulators are corrupt and beholden to special interests, they aren’t going to do what’s best for the general public. So, all the theory of what to base regulations on suddenly get real meaningless.

And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I think the only way to get back to decent regulation, (either by govt or by self regulation) is to convince people that corruption is crushing our economy.

[quote=sdduuuude]Take, for example, the housing market. All the regulation/bailouts are designed to “keep people in their homes” or to “prop-up the housing market” or to prevent banks from going under. Nothing is really focused on eliminating the fraud, particularly that by the ratings agencies who defrauded millions of buyers of “AAA” rated securities.
Regulating to outcomes instead of regulating to protect rights is killing this country.[/quote]

I think we’re really saying the same thing, only I’m calling “regulating outcomes” as corruption. The outcomes they are trying to achieve via regulation are outcomes dictated by those who spent the most money on campaign contributions. To me that’s corruption, plain and simple.

Which leads to these questions: If we can’t clean the corruption from the government, what’s the point in looking to them to regulate things? Why would a corrupt government follow your advice to regulate based on people’s rights when they are paid to regulate based on the interests of the people paying them?