vladimir wrote:I understand what you are saying...but are you suggesting all regulation on banking is bad? How did that pan out in America and Europe?
Without saying it's bad or good, it's not free. When the banks went to shite in America and Europe governments were lining up to fill their pockets with tax money. In a free market those corporations would have gone out of business but government intervention was quick to the rescue. I would prefer the former.
vladimir wrote:as soon as one has a govt, there is regulation.
Not in minarchist states, see the night-watchman state.
vladimir wrote:I don't recall using free market terminology, I was referring more to the supply and demand mantra, which must also function within a regulated environment.
Supply and demand does not care for laws, hence the supply of services and goods demanded on the black market. The failed war on drugs has made that very clear.
vladimir wrote:Money, by definition, already means a regulated market.
Money is a simple representation of value. The existence of value does not equal the existence of regulation.
vladimir wrote:1. What economy do you associate with 'free markets'?
Capitalism. Before you tell me it doesn't work in America, remember that economy and political ideology are different.
vladimir wrote:2. Human nature creates a need for regulation. The first step is rule of law...which is in itself a regulation. One of the prime movers for law is to protect property.
The important parts we already biologically agree on as a species. Murder is bad, rape is bad, theft is bad. Those who commit those crimes are expelled from the tribe. That is not limited to humans.
What is unique to humans is the exponential increase of laws we must follows. Laws are often amended or freshly written but, in comparison, very rarely removed. As society develops we keep adding more and more regulation in as many areas as we can. It's a panic reaction triggered by a combination of afraid citizens and power hungry leaders. Regulation grows on society and kills us like a tumour. We don't know better.
vladimir wrote:I doubt you would say that the regulation to protect property is good, but regulating interest rates to protect people is bad? because the only real difference between the two is the income bracket, tbh.
I don't know why you doubt that, private property along with individualism is the most important things to protect.
I think the part of
"to protect people" is part of the problem I described in the paragraph above. If the intention of writing laws is to protect people from themselves, mind you, then our laws will increase ad infinitum because opposing it would be a moral failure.
There are better ways to protect people from making bad investments, or buying into products that quickly deteriorate in value. An iPhone costs upon launch, what, $700-$1000 and poor people are rushing to buy it. A couple of years later they are lucky if they get 10% back on their purchase. It is harmful, is it therefore immoral that there is no law in place to ban poor people from buying the latest iPhones?
I believe the right thing to do is to educate. "No Jimmy, don't get those sham MFI loans, they will mess you up!" In order for people to make informed decisions on investment and purchase they must first be educated. For a person with no idea of fundamental risk-benefit analysis it becomes a direct danger to the self to be in charge of credit cards. How should we tackle that problem, do we make it illegal for stupid people to buy things on credit, or even rule them legally minor, because it would be immoral not to "protect them", or do we do our best to remind people not to?
Irresponsibility can never be regulated. On the contrary, the more there is regulation the less there will be responsibility. We have seen that repeatedly in countries that have, albeit with admirable intent, gone out of hand regarding protecting people. The more safety nets people have the less they think and the less they are geared for what we on the outside consider real world.
Bless