[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, rather than regulating based on attempts at achieving certain economic or political outcomes.

The declaration of independence says we have the right to “the pursuit of happiness” not “happiness”

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.

[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, rather than regulating based on attempts at achieving certain economic or political outcomes.

The declaration of independence says we have the right to “the pursuit of happiness” not “happiness”

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.

[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, rather than regulating based on attempts at achieving certain economic or political outcomes.

The declaration of independence says we have the right to “the pursuit of happiness” not “happiness”

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.

[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, rather than regulating based on attempts at achieving certain economic or political outcomes.

The declaration of independence says we have the right to “the pursuit of happiness” not “happiness”

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.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=SK in CV]The question is which would have been more likely to prevent it: More and/or better government regulation or less?[/quote]

Difficult to say, and one reason why this whole thread is going to be a little “sticky.” That is the right question, though.

I’m going to speak more in terms of the “free market” rather than “Libertarianism” for reasons mentioned by davelj.

I tend to agree that this situation was under-regulated. This isn’t to say a free-market would have done less to prevent it. In fact, in a free market, where regulations are based on preventing property-rights violation, BP may not have been there in the first place.

As a free-market guy, I have no issues enforcing rules limiting those who put others at risk. As I see it, the fact that the govt gave license to drill there under the conditions that it did is not a failure of the free market. Under-regulation can make a market “not free” just as much as over-regulation.

It is important to understand that neither free-markets nor government-controlled markets are “mistake-free.” Also, neither are static. When something like this happens – how does each react ?

So, the fact that this happened is only part of the picture. The question is – how will it affect rules going forward? Government may overreact here.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=SK in CV]The question is which would have been more likely to prevent it: More and/or better government regulation or less?[/quote]

Difficult to say, and one reason why this whole thread is going to be a little “sticky.” That is the right question, though.

I’m going to speak more in terms of the “free market” rather than “Libertarianism” for reasons mentioned by davelj.

I tend to agree that this situation was under-regulated. This isn’t to say a free-market would have done less to prevent it. In fact, in a free market, where regulations are based on preventing property-rights violation, BP may not have been there in the first place.

As a free-market guy, I have no issues enforcing rules limiting those who put others at risk. As I see it, the fact that the govt gave license to drill there under the conditions that it did is not a failure of the free market. Under-regulation can make a market “not free” just as much as over-regulation.

It is important to understand that neither free-markets nor government-controlled markets are “mistake-free.” Also, neither are static. When something like this happens – how does each react ?

So, the fact that this happened is only part of the picture. The question is – how will it affect rules going forward? Government may overreact here.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=SK in CV]The question is which would have been more likely to prevent it: More and/or better government regulation or less?[/quote]

Difficult to say, and one reason why this whole thread is going to be a little “sticky.” That is the right question, though.

I’m going to speak more in terms of the “free market” rather than “Libertarianism” for reasons mentioned by davelj.

I tend to agree that this situation was under-regulated. This isn’t to say a free-market would have done less to prevent it. In fact, in a free market, where regulations are based on preventing property-rights violation, BP may not have been there in the first place.

As a free-market guy, I have no issues enforcing rules limiting those who put others at risk. As I see it, the fact that the govt gave license to drill there under the conditions that it did is not a failure of the free market. Under-regulation can make a market “not free” just as much as over-regulation.

It is important to understand that neither free-markets nor government-controlled markets are “mistake-free.” Also, neither are static. When something like this happens – how does each react ?

So, the fact that this happened is only part of the picture. The question is – how will it affect rules going forward? Government may overreact here.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=SK in CV]The question is which would have been more likely to prevent it: More and/or better government regulation or less?[/quote]

Difficult to say, and one reason why this whole thread is going to be a little “sticky.” That is the right question, though.

I’m going to speak more in terms of the “free market” rather than “Libertarianism” for reasons mentioned by davelj.

I tend to agree that this situation was under-regulated. This isn’t to say a free-market would have done less to prevent it. In fact, in a free market, where regulations are based on preventing property-rights violation, BP may not have been there in the first place.

As a free-market guy, I have no issues enforcing rules limiting those who put others at risk. As I see it, the fact that the govt gave license to drill there under the conditions that it did is not a failure of the free market. Under-regulation can make a market “not free” just as much as over-regulation.

It is important to understand that neither free-markets nor government-controlled markets are “mistake-free.” Also, neither are static. When something like this happens – how does each react ?

So, the fact that this happened is only part of the picture. The question is – how will it affect rules going forward? Government may overreact here.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=SK in CV]The question is which would have been more likely to prevent it: More and/or better government regulation or less?[/quote]

Difficult to say, and one reason why this whole thread is going to be a little “sticky.” That is the right question, though.

I’m going to speak more in terms of the “free market” rather than “Libertarianism” for reasons mentioned by davelj.

I tend to agree that this situation was under-regulated. This isn’t to say a free-market would have done less to prevent it. In fact, in a free market, where regulations are based on preventing property-rights violation, BP may not have been there in the first place.

As a free-market guy, I have no issues enforcing rules limiting those who put others at risk. As I see it, the fact that the govt gave license to drill there under the conditions that it did is not a failure of the free market. Under-regulation can make a market “not free” just as much as over-regulation.

It is important to understand that neither free-markets nor government-controlled markets are “mistake-free.” Also, neither are static. When something like this happens – how does each react ?

So, the fact that this happened is only part of the picture. The question is – how will it affect rules going forward? Government may overreact here.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Eugene] Excessive Bush-era libertarianisation[/quote]

You aren’t wrong, but I would call that “Crony Capitalism” not libertarianism.

I can tell already. This is the thread where something other than libertarianism gets a bad name, but it is called “libertarianism.”

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Eugene] Excessive Bush-era libertarianisation[/quote]

You aren’t wrong, but I would call that “Crony Capitalism” not libertarianism.

I can tell already. This is the thread where something other than libertarianism gets a bad name, but it is called “libertarianism.”

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Eugene] Excessive Bush-era libertarianisation[/quote]

You aren’t wrong, but I would call that “Crony Capitalism” not libertarianism.

I can tell already. This is the thread where something other than libertarianism gets a bad name, but it is called “libertarianism.”

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Eugene] Excessive Bush-era libertarianisation[/quote]

You aren’t wrong, but I would call that “Crony Capitalism” not libertarianism.

I can tell already. This is the thread where something other than libertarianism gets a bad name, but it is called “libertarianism.”

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Eugene] Excessive Bush-era libertarianisation[/quote]

You aren’t wrong, but I would call that “Crony Capitalism” not libertarianism.

I can tell already. This is the thread where something other than libertarianism gets a bad name, but it is called “libertarianism.”

[sdduuuude]

I guess if we were living in a libertarian society, you’d be correct.

Also, “libertarian” and “unregulated” are not the same things.

Third – morons will be morons in any society, be it socialist, libertarian, representative democracy or dictatorship. No system of government can stop morons from being morons.

Simple answer is “no”

[Author]

Posts