Republicans Represent the People

[Ashendant]

None of you seem to get the difference between regulation and policing.

Enlighten us, oh wise one

[theVOID]

None of you seem to get the difference between regulation and policing.

Enlighten us, oh wise one

Policing is investigating and prosecuting crimes - Given good evidence to believe foul play will occur or that it has, policing will investigate breaches of the law and prosecute offenders. This encompasses use of force, fraud, coercion and negligence. If a company builds a product that is unsafe or has risks in use and does not fully disclose those details then they have committed both fraud and neglected their responsibilities and should be prosecuted thoroughly.

Regulation is many things:

1. Pre-crime: this is equivalent to checking up on people for the simple reason that they could do wrong or that something may go wrong at some point in the future - These actions have no consideration for the intent to commit crime OR some existent violation of the law. This is something that if was done in personal lives would cause outrage - If some government official was going to force you to take steps to prevent your ability to do something wrong because someone else has done something wrong given similar opportunity people would be furious - You would have to face expenses because someone thinks you might do wrong some time in the future because someone else did. Some frankly bizarre double standard convinces people that it is okay to do it professional lives. The worst part about this is the cost of compliance also effects the small to medium sized businesses who are the cornerstone of the economy, the businesses who are unlikely to do any wrong to begin with are forced to comply with stupid costs because somewhere down the line some other company might to something unethical - The costs come straight out of their capital investments, making it more expensive to run and expand their businesses which means that existing employees get paid less and new ones are less likely to be hired - It's completely fucking stupid.

2. "Protectionism" - This is when the government dictates the terms of agreements between consenting parties, setting various minimums and maximums on various issues, a minimum wage and holiday leave would be an example of this. Some form of protectionism is the only form of regulation that I would advocate, if only to protect the naive, however some of the "protections" such as the new "disability" laws that I linked to in the audio clip above, are absolutely detrimental to their stated goals and cause more problems than good. Protectionism needs to be absolutely thorough in it's planning and implementation, not hastily and foolishly scrapped together - It can be a massive detriment to the economy.

3. Market manipulation - This is what I absolutely despise - This is when the government tries to be the masters of the economy, allocating resources, taxpayer money, subsidies, tax breaks and imposing tariffs to move the economy, OUR production, in the direction that they see fit, often straight into the pockets of corporations. This is, in my opinion, an absolute violation of the rights of the people to chose how to spend their own productivity - Not to mention that is it plainly stupid to think that the government can allocate productivity better than the entire collective population - It is both immoral and stupid. Market manipulation caused the latest recession, by guaranteeing loans in order to create a housing boom they took the liabilities away from lenders, instead of people making loans having a vested interest in making sure they can be repaid they did not have to care because the government would pay it. Instead of needing sound loans they simply signed up as many sub prime loans as possible and sold them on directly to Fanny and Freddy. It's Keynesian nonsense.

There are more aspects, but those are the main 3.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

You keep up this optimism that somehow an unregulated capitalist market is going to stomp out corruption when all its going to do is remove many of the limits between the corrupting forces (the wealthy wanting to be given favorable breaks) and the government that's supposed to be protecting their citizens from tyranny.

Tyranny? Ah, another corporophobe.

They get far bigger advantages from government that they do constraints. Do you think that the number of regulations on the market outweighs the cushy privileges, tax breaks and subsidies? No - Especially not for the bigger corporations, the regulations fuck over small to medium sized business far more because they don't get the massive welfare packages to account for it!

Your government just "regulated" the labor force again by changing the definition of disabled to extend to anxiety, bi-polar, HIV and so on, now over half the labor market qualifies as disabled, and the employees no longer have the burden of proof to demonstrate they are disabled, the employer has to prove that they aren't!

How do you think they got those privilages? Politicians just handed them to them out of the very idea that they should control the market? (Well, let's be honest here, some of them indeed did get this - the energy market comes to mind, though it's because electricity and heat are necessities of an industrialized nation, so they get their special favors and I support that).
But in the vast majority of cases, companies lobby, bribe, cajole, and finance politicians until they pass laws to gain them special favors. It wasn't the goverment that corrupted the market. The Market corrupted the market through the government by exercising their constitutionally guarented freedoms to petition their government, vote, and support their politicians.

Yes - I don't agree with all of the government interferances in the market or in society in general. It's a constant struggle in a flexible, democratic society where laws can come and go based on demand and ideaology. I think this is honestly one of the greatest things about this country and simultaneously leaves it so open to the kinds of corruptions we constantly have to fight against.

Although you're not advocating the extreme that, say, Adrian exonifies (anarcho-capitalism), your blank-slate full on capitalism leaves the metaphorical gates wide open for all of the abuses (and more) that you're rallying here and elsewhere against. You're lumping 'policing against negligence' as something different than regulations when their very definition leaves them as virtual synonyms with one another.

I even gave you the definition (though it was erased in the server crash, but if I have time, I'll attempt to re-write the post as it continued the "Rich" discussion awhile back, but I'll be moving out of my state this weekend, so I'm not 100% on that - I may just abandon the discussion to continue another day.)

1.A rule or directive made and maintained by an authority

As soon as you explain the difference between a 'regulation' and a 'law', then I'd like to hear it, because I'm pretty sure my local department of health, when it shuts down a restraunt for not following regulations, is enforcing a system that forces them to not neglect their duty to keep their food and eating environs sanitary and safe for people to do business with them.
That's a classic example of how such things work.

In a free market you CAN'T give the wealthy breaks, you can't give them any taxpayer money at all - they can only get what they want via trade. If they can do so through consensual trade then who fucking cares?

Bullshit.
That might be in the lawbooks and how that society is supposed to run, but it's not going to stop them from trying or succeeding. The lack of intervention also prevents something like the local health inspectors (a tax-paid government employee) from enforcing those pesky regulations against selling unsafe food in an unsafe environment.
This a GOVERNMENT employee telling a small BUSINESS that they CANNOT make their CONSENTUAL trades to WILLING customers because they do not meet FEDERAL REGULATORY STANDARDS on what constitutes safe food.
You can't have this both ways. You're either letting companies get away with murder (metaphorically AND literally) or you're hurting their freedoms. A regulated capitalistic system, ideally provides a middle ground that protects citizens and allows for as much freedom as possible without infringing on the rights and safeties of others. Less government interferance means more freedom but fewer protections. More government means more protections and fewer freedoms.

Cant' get clean water and an education without the government! Can't buy veggies without the government! No company will make safe products without regulations, right? That's bollocks. It's in the best interests of the companies to make safe products, not only will they lose customers otherwise, they can be prosecuted for negligence - You don't need some government official to go check up on them, you just need to arrest them when they do something wrong.

And what was that link? A rival company produced the same product cheaper and the FDA said "sure you can do that?" - That's an example of good competition, not some government win.

It is bullocks because it's a strawman arguement. Just because I'm playing the devil's advocate here for government doesn't mean I think the ideal society is a result entirely of the government's hand. I never made that arguement. I'm making the arguement that many of the US's current good living standards is a result of those regulations and influences and not those of pure market forces. In fact, many of the regulations that help society have come about in the exact same manner as those of the negative ones. (In fact, thanks to the US's plutocrats, the negative aspects are winning since the 5% that control 95% of the wealth still want 100%, but that's another arguement).

The way I see the link I posted is that one company attempted to sell their paroduct at a horrificially inflated price and failed because of the FDA's ruling. So you have a government regulatory agency that actively made a ruling on what can or cannot happen in the marketplace and instead of bowing to the pressure of the company that wanted to inflate their price, they said that the less expensive version of the product can be sold at that price. So... yay FDA. Particularly given that the two companies weren't even competing yet.

As far as what's in the best interests of companies - no - what's in their best interest is making as much money as possible by any means necessary. The best example of the worst of capitalism is what the healthcare insurance companies have been doing over here for decades.

[theVOID]

How do you think they got those privilages?

1. Politicians thinking they are the masters of the economy who decide that they are going to allocate our resources for us.

2. Corruption.

Politicians just handed them to them out of the very idea that they should control the market? (Well, let's be honest here, some of them indeed did get this - the energy market comes to mind, though it's because electricity and heat are necessities of an industrialized nation, so they get their special favors and I support that).

They get anti-competitive advantages, that doesn't make energy more efficient or cheaper, it means it's much harder for other companies to compete. If you're going to insist on spending taxpayer money on energy don't give it to a fucking private interest, give it to a R&D program at a university or research lab.

But in the vast majority of cases, companies lobby, bribe, cajole, and finance politicians until they pass laws to gain them special favors.

No shit sherlock, that's what I've been saying all along.

It wasn't the goverment that corrupted the market. The Market corrupted the market through the government by exercising their constitutionally guarented freedoms to petition their government, vote, and support their politicians.

Oh bullshit, the governments decided that they know best and can rule the economy from on high, corporations saw this as an opportunity to get the conditions they wanted and launched at it. If the government did not have the power to legislate commerce then there would be much much less opportunity to get these unfair conditions - They can't get those advantages from individuals without use of force, fraud or coercion, all things that are punishable. But if they get these advantages from government there is nothing we can do about it!

Corporations want the government to have control over the economy, that's their best way to get propped up given advantages.

Yes - I don't agree with all of the government interferances in the market or in society in general. It's a constant struggle in a flexible, democratic society where laws can come and go based on demand and ideaology. I think this is honestly one of the greatest things about this country and simultaneously leaves it so open to the kinds of corruptions we constantly have to fight against.

Are you shitting me? You're all broke and more controlled by corporate interests than ever! It has not fucking worked, things aren't more equal, the working class isn't better off, the rich don't have to work harder for their profits, it's had the complete opposite effect.

Keynesianism is a fucking disaster!

Although you're not advocating the extreme that, say, Adrian exonifies (anarcho-capitalism), your blank-slate full on capitalism leaves the metaphorical gates wide open for all of the abuses (and more) that you're rallying here and elsewhere against. You're lumping 'policing against negligence' as something different than regulations when their very definition leaves them as virtual synonyms with one another.

No it doesn't, Government is the gatekeeper, I want to remove the gates entirely and puts up a fucking wall - Not one business gets taxpayer money, period.

Regulation IS different to policing, massively different! Policing does not presume guilt and does not restrict freedoms in the name of preventing action, it does not treat everyone in that position like a potential criminal, policing only acts on guilt.

I even gave you the definition (though it was erased in the server crash, but if I have time, I'll attempt to re-write the post as it continued the "Rich" discussion awhile back, but I'll be moving out of my state this weekend, so I'm not 100% on that - I may just abandon the discussion to continue another day.)

Sure more rules for the people to follow, more things become illegal. You want more and more rules? Fuck that, we need less rules and harsher punishments. Punishing people that commit crimes with tough sentences is far more fair and effective than trying to stem it by imposing on everyone, even the people who wouldn't do wrong to begin with! It's also far far cheaper, so you don't end up a debt riddled mess like your country.

These regulations fuck more people over than the help.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e..._.28FCC.29

As soon as you explain the difference between a 'regulation' and a 'law', then I'd like to hear it, because I'm pretty sure my local department of health, when it shuts down a restraunt for not following regulations, is enforcing a system that forces them to not neglect their duty to keep their food and eating environs sanitary and safe for people to do business with them.
That's a classic example of how such things work.

A regulation IS a law, I never said it wasn't, I said Regulation is not POLICING.

So you think we should treat all restaurants like potential criminals and check up on them like some parole officer, all of which costs tons of money, because some restaurant somewhere will neglect their responsibilities and make someone sick? Fuck that, why should ethical companies suffer because of the unethical few? When it does occur that someone gets sick at a restaurant then the government should shut them down and fine or imprison the owners, they should not treat them like criminals before they have done something wrong.

That might be in the lawbooks and how that society is supposed to run, but it's not going to stop them from trying or succeeding.

They do it anyway! At least I'm promoting a system that would make it fucking hard for them to do so, one in which their propagation isn't supported by the government and made legal.

The lack of intervention also prevents something like the local health inspectors (a tax-paid government employee) from enforcing those pesky regulations against selling unsafe food in an unsafe environment.

We should punish them when they do something wrong, not BEFORE.

This a GOVERNMENT employee telling a small BUSINESS that they CANNOT make their CONSENTUAL trades to WILLING customers because they do not meet FEDERAL REGULATORY STANDARDS on what constitutes safe food.

Safe food is food that does not make people sick. When you purchase food you do so under the promise that it won't make you sick - If a company does not comply then they are fined/shut down/imprisoned. You DO NOT need a big expensive government department to make that perfectly clear.

You can't have this both ways. You're either letting companies get away with murder (metaphorically AND literally) or you're hurting their freedoms.

Complete fucking straw man, I have covered this AT LENGTH already. If they neglect their responsibilities they do NOT get away with it, they get prosecuted!

A regulated capitalistic system, ideally provides a middle ground that protects citizens and allows for as much freedom as possible without infringing on the rights and safeties of others. Less government interferance means more freedom but fewer protections. More government means more protections and fewer freedoms.

False dichotomy, you can replace regulations with tougher sentences, make it perfectly clear that "We're not going to watch you like a naughty child or a certain criminal, but if you do fuck up be warned that you are going to get fucking slammed for it".

That way you have more freedom and more protection. Deterrents are effective, you DO NOT need a watch dog for every little thing that could go wrong - When you take the second approach you balloon the government and have to spend tons of money to maintain it all.

It is bullocks because it's a strawman arguement. Just because I'm playing the devil's advocate here for government doesn't mean I think the ideal society is a result entirely of the government's hand. I never made that arguement. I'm making the arguement that many of the US's current good living standards is a result of those regulations and influences and not those of pure market forces. In fact, many of the regulations that help society have come about in the exact same manner as those of the negative ones. (In fact, thanks to the US's plutocrats, the negative aspects are winning since the 5% that control 95% of the wealth still want 100%, but that's another arguement).

It's completely beside the point.

Your living standards are amongst the most unequal in the western world! Once the per capita GDP is adjusted for disparity you go from #4 to #17! You go back before the Keynesian mentality took over your country, back when there were less regulations, have a look at the numbers there. The US used to rank #1.

Stop playing devils advocate, if you present stupid scenarios you don't agree with then don't bother getting your nickers in a twist when I call bullshit.

The way I see the link I posted is that one company attempted to sell their paroduct at a horrificially inflated price and failed because of the FDA's ruling.

The FDA can't arbitrarily decide to throw out intellectual property laws, they concluded that the competitors already had the right to compete.

IP laws are one of the biggest government shams, one of the most lucrative exploitation of regulations that the corruptors have access to.

So you have a government regulatory agency that actively made a ruling on what can or cannot happen in the marketplace and instead of bowing to the pressure of the company that wanted to inflate their price, they said that the less expensive version of the product can be sold at that price. So... yay FDA. Particularly given that the two companies weren't even competing yet.

That's not at all what happened. It wasn't just two companies, it was one big pharmaceutical and a number of independent pharmacies, the big pharma wanted to restrict their ability to compete freely and the FDA did NOT step in and relinquish the big pharma's IP, they said "you don't own that right".

The FDA didn't do shit, they pointed out the obvious, the Big pharma did not have the rights they were claiming, they couldn't have done a fucking thing about it anyway.

As far as what's in the best interests of companies - no - what's in their best interest is making as much money as possible by any means necessary. The best example of the worst of capitalism is what the healthcare insurance companies have been doing over here for decades.

You used to have the highest quality care per $ in the world, before the regulations.

[Ashendant]

1. Pre-crime: this is equivalent to checking up on people for the simple reason that they could do wrong or that something may go wrong at some point in the future - These actions have no consideration for the intent to commit crime OR some existent violation of the law. This is something that if was done in personal lives would cause outrage - If some government official was going to force you to take steps to prevent your ability to do something wrong because someone else has done something wrong given similar opportunity people would be furious - You would have to face expenses because someone thinks you might do wrong some time in the future because someone else did. Some frankly bizarre double standard convinces people that it is okay to do it professional lives. The worst part about this is the cost of compliance also effects the small to medium sized businesses who are the cornerstone of the economy, the businesses who are unlikely to do any wrong to begin with are forced to comply with stupid costs because somewhere down the line some other company might to something unethical - The costs come straight out of their capital investments, making it more expensive to run and expand their businesses which means that existing employees get paid less and new ones are less likely to be hired - It's completely fucking stupid.

So you think preventive costumer protection is stupid...?

2. "Protectionism" - This is when the government dictates the terms of agreements between consenting parties, setting various minimums and maximums on various issues, a minimum wage and holiday leave would be an example of this. Some form of protectionism is the only form of regulation that I would advocate, if only to protect the naive, however some of the "protections" such as the new "disability" laws that I linked to in the audio clip above, are absolutely detrimental to their stated goals and cause more problems than good. Protectionism needs to be absolutely thorough in it's planning and implementation, not hastily and foolishly scrapped together - It can be a massive detriment to the economy.

So you think people should be slaves? there are reasons why those 2 exist.

3. Market manipulation - This is what I absolutely despise - This is when the government tries to be the masters of the economy, allocating resources, taxpayer money, subsidies, tax breaks and imposing tariffs to move the economy, OUR production, in the direction that they see fit, often straight into the pockets of corporations. This is, in my opinion, an absolute violation of the rights of the people to chose how to spend their own productivity - Not to mention that is it plainly stupid to think that the government can allocate productivity better than the entire collective population - It is both immoral and stupid. Market manipulation caused the latest recession, by guaranteeing loans in order to create a housing boom they took the liabilities away from lenders, instead of people making loans having a vested interest in making sure they can be repaid they did not have to care because the government would pay it. Instead of needing sound loans they simply signed up as many sub prime loans as possible and sold them on directly to Fanny and Freddy. It's Keynesian nonsense.

I only agree with market manipulation in two situations
1:As a method of pressure to other governments actions that are detrimental to us
2:In large scale industries that nothing else but governments can bring cash to it(Space exploration, costly studies, triggering certain industries output)

[theVOID]

So you think preventive costumer protection is stupid...?

To the same extent that it stupid to prevent domestic crime by periodically busting into ever home to make sre

So you think people should be slaves? there are reasons why those 2 exist.

Did you actually read what I wrote? I just said I am for some basic form of protectionism, such as securing holiday pay or a minimum wage, but not extensive measures that often do more harm than good, such as employees being able to claim disability on trivial issues and not having the burden of proof.

And slavery is not even applicable absent those measures, someone can still chose not to take the job or can negotiate their own terms, those options do not exist in slavery.

I only agree with market manipulation in two situations
1:As a method of pressure to other governments actions that are detrimental to us

Explain.

2:In large scale industries that nothing else but governments can bring cash to it(Space exploration, costly studies, triggering certain industries output)

Explain.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

1. Politicians thinking they are the masters of the economy who decide that they are going to allocate our resources for us.

Indeed they do. They do because the people paying them tell them to do so because they are bought and paid for. Their masters become the wealthy and powerful and not the people who elected them into office. That's not a result of the government's level of involvement in the economy. That's a result of someone wanting said politician to legislate favorably to the individuals who bought them.

If you're going to insist on spending taxpayer money on energy don't give it to a fucking private interest, give it to a R&D program at a university or research lab.

I agree.

No shit sherlock, that's what I've been saying all along.

Indeed, but it's NOT COMING FROM THE GOVERNMENT!

Oh bullshit, the governments decided that they know best and can rule the economy from on high, corporations saw this as an opportunity to get the conditions they wanted and launched at it.

Aaaand I'm going to have to stop you right here.
No.
I don't know if it's different in your country or not (I highly doubt it, but I don't honestly know) but that's now how this happens in most cases. If the government did not have the power to legislate the economy, then that's not going to stop people who want legislation of the economy from making exceptions.
It's happened in my country and given one of the threads you started about the ... I think it was some law that got passed that banned smoking in your country? It sounds like something we have in common. Don't pretend like CEOs are going to be perfect angels in a non-stop free market theVoid-Approved society because you're just being naive.
Government non-interferance in the economy gives these abusers at least equal opportunity for many of the abuses they already commit.

Are you shitting me? You're all broke and more controlled by corporate interests than ever! It has not fucking worked, things aren't more equal, the working class isn't better off, the rich don't have to work harder for their profits, it's had the complete opposite effect.

Yes. Thanks to small government anti-regulation pro-business interests that heavily de-regulated the market lowered taxes and funded a pair of illegal and expensive wars without paying for any of it in the budgets except by cutting popular social programs and forcing the government to intervene on a woman's uterus.

Keynesianism is a fucking disaster!

Oh right. Paper money. That's why my government is in debt.

No it doesn't, Government is the gatekeeper, I want to remove the gates entirely and puts up a fucking wall - Not one business gets taxpayer money, period.

Which is pointless when the wealthy and powerful can still buy a sledgehammer.

Regulation IS different to policing, massively different!

Yes, not that I said any different.

Sure more rules for the people to follow, more things become illegal. You want more and more rules? Fuck that, we need less rules and harsher punishments. Punishing people that commit crimes with tough sentences is far more fair and effective than trying to stem it by imposing on everyone, even the people who wouldn't do wrong to begin with! It's also far far cheaper, so you don't end up a debt riddled mess like your country.

These regulations fuck more people over than the help.

I don't give a damn about how many rules there are as long as they're effective at what they do and enforced as such. More rules doesn't mean worse and fewer doesn't always mean better. I'm sure that's a fallacious logical arguement whose name I've forgotten.
Punishing people more harshly means diddly poop if wealthy people can continue to buy their way out of trouble. White collar crime in most countries is very difficult to prosecute in most cases and your system doesn't make easier to charge them appropriately to the crime they commit.
I'd settle for equal enforcement of the law as much as humanly possible.

Still, that's a nice opinion you have of regulation but given your confusion over what laws are and what regulations are, you seem to have your own idea as to what constitutes which that doesn't seem to follow the defintions and uses I've come across anytime I reference them.
Still, thanks to my state and local water regulators, I can be quite certain I'll be drinking clean water tonight. Thanks to the FDA, I can be reasonably certain that these peanut butter M&Ms I'm eating now won't injure my health (anymore than peanut butter M&Ms normally would given the ingredients list that's there thanks to the FDA.)

By the by, your link was quite amusing. So the FCC is a corrupt company, sure, thanks to the media conglomerates that 'purchased' it.
Your solution to this is... to eliminate the FCC I'm guessing? How wonderful. Now those media conglomerates don't need to corrupt a regulating body to do whatever mischief they intend to inflict upon us. Good work.

A regulation IS a law, I never said it wasn't, I said Regulation is not POLICING.

You certainly did, not that I was arguing that regulation was a manner of policing, so I'm not sure why you're stating this.

So you think we should treat all restaurants like potential criminals and check up on them like some parole officer, all of which costs tons of money, because some restaurant somewhere will neglect their responsibilities and make someone sick? Fuck that, why should ethical companies suffer because of the unethical few? When it does occur that someone gets sick at a restaurant then the government should shut them down and fine or imprison the owners, they should not treat them like criminals before they have done something wrong.

Strawman. Wasn't my arguement.

They do it anyway! At least I'm promoting a system that would make it fucking hard for them to do so, one in which their propagation isn't supported by the government and made legal.

You're damn right they do it anyway. Yet, you're promoting a system that makes it harder for them to do by removing the vast majority of the regulations and laws that prevent them from taking advantage of an unsuspecting public and robbing them blind with far fewer roadblocks to do so.
At least with a regulating government, fire can be fought with fire and even with all this talk about how bad my government is doing, all of the industrialized nations on this planet are at least as regulated and are doing anywhere from worse to far better.
You're naive in the sense that you believe that less regulation means these corrupting companies, CEOs, and other powerful people are going be regulated by market forces they can control and a government with no power to tell them what they can or cannot do with their product or their money (other than, I assume taxes.)

We should punish them when they do something wrong, not BEFORE.

I'd hate to see the news report on how many got sick, injured, or killed as a result of that.

Safe food is food that does not make people sick. When you purchase food you do so under the promise that it won't make you sick - If a company does not comply then they are fined/shut down/imprisoned. You DO NOT need a big expensive government department to make that perfectly clear.

You need a "big expensive government department" to make sure they comply and enforce the rules that they may break. Being fined/shut down/imprisoned is a result of enforcement of regulations that would be gone under your system, assuming the individuals enforcing those laws aren't also removed due to them only existing as a 'big expensive government department."

Complete fucking straw man, I have covered this AT LENGTH already. If they neglect their responsibilities they do NOT get away with it, they get prosecuted!

It's not a strawman at all. You just don't appear to understand the results of the kind of society based on your own ideas on how governments should be run or even the role of regulations in society.
Yes, if they "neglect their responsibilities" then they will get prosecuted for doing so.
But what dictates those responsibilites? Who enforces them? At what point is what they're doing even considered a crime?

More importantly, how many deaths, injuries, and expensive lawsuits must there be before someone figures out that a local health department (big expensive government regulating body) and the laws that allow them to work (those evil, evil regulations) just to get one guy to occasionally visit food establishments and tell them not to keep their rat poison and fatatas so close to one another?
The FDA, FCC, Homeland Security, and all those agencies are created for a reason. On a larger scale, not entirely a different reason than what I've been highlighting it above.
Your system, on the other hand, is one that does away with the laws (regulations) and the enforcement (regulators) that allow my food to be edible and not poisonous to my health. Luckily, I don't have to loose my life or my livelihood (from health loss, injury, lawsuits, or medical expenses.)
Your system will not protect its citizens and it doesn't even protect itself from corruption and thanks to those protections against government interferance, it would be harder to erase those corruptions once they happen.

You've explained a lot about your position, but my assessment is not a strawman, only what I view as a logical conclusion of your views. Worse, you appear to think that your society will have the benefits of what many societies have today (regulation and enforcement of that regulation) would somehow be folded into standard law enforcement which can only happen after a worst-case scenario who enforce laws that aren't, apparently, regulative in nature but do what regulations do and are enforced as they are enforced, only not nearly as effectively (since enforcement can only be reactionary).

Bull. This kind of society would collapse from corruption and social problems at a rate equal to or greater than a nation that does regulate their economic activity.

False dichotomy, you can replace regulations with tougher sentences, make it perfectly clear that "We're not going to watch you like a naughty child or a certain criminal, but if you do fuck up be warned that you are going to get fucking slammed for it".

That way you have more freedom and more protection. Deterrents are effective, you DO NOT need a watch dog for every little thing that could go wrong - When you take the second approach you balloon the government and have to spend tons of money to maintain it all.

You certainly could, but I doubt its effectiveness and your conclusions.

Your living standards are amongst the most unequal in the western world! Once the per capita GDP is adjusted for disparity you go from #4 to #17! You go back before the Keynesian mentality took over your country, back when there were less regulations, have a look at the numbers there. The US used to rank #1.

Stop playing devils advocate, if you present stupid scenarios you don't agree with then don't bother getting your nickers in a twist when I call bullshit.

It was easy to rank #1 when the country was the only one left standing intact after two world wars. (Technically, the Soviet Union was, at the very least, #2 for several decades, which in no way helps your arguement.)
This was all still after we switched to paper money. Still after the government was well beyond starting to infiltrate into the economy. We were the number 1 nation in living standards well after all those evils had already made their mark. I could argue that it was because of those changes that we were able to do what we did in the WWs as well as excel afterword.
The nation began to decline just before the Reagan administration and aside from the Clinton Administration, it's been declining ever since thanks to Republicans not knowing or understanding how to spend money without deliberately setting things up to benefit the wealthy. Our issues have nothing to do with what our money is based on.
Our issues is entirely a result of corruption from people trying to turn this country into a plutocracy and their purchasing of our politicians. All of which goes into what I've been talking about. It doesn't matter what government we have, presently. There are forces who want that power to benefit them and no one else.

You used to have the highest quality care per $ in the world, before the regulations.

It helped that all the sick people were booted out of the healthcare system and prices were overinflated to help the insurance companies, before regulations. Thank you capitalism, your health insurance industry overcharges me more and more each month and when I need the #1 healthcare system in the world, you boot me out when I get too sick.

[Ashendant]

To the same extent that it stupid to prevent domestic crime by periodically busting into ever home to make sre

So you think they shouldn't test if the food is poisonous, the car has brakes that don't fail, or if the house isn't going to be filled with abestos.

Did you actually read what I wrote? I just said I am for some basic form of protectionism, such as securing holiday pay or a minimum wage, but not extensive measures that often do more harm than good, such as employees being able to claim disability on trivial issues and not having the burden of proof.

And slavery is not even applicable absent those measures, someone can still chose not to take the job or can negotiate their own terms, those options do not exist in slavery.

I misread what you said i thought you said those two were examples of bad

I only agree with market manipulation in two situations
1:As a method of pressure to other governments actions that are detrimental to us

Explain.

Example: China sells their products at incredibly cheap prices that are strangling EU economy on metal fasterners, so europe set anti-dumping duties to stop(even trough there's a ruling of the WTO to stop it)

2:In large scale industries that nothing else but governments can bring cash to it(Space exploration, costly studies, triggering certain industries output)

Explain.

Exactly what i said, a civil company can't just get the money to go to space and set a incredibly expensive jobs that will incredibly improve humanity, but only governments can pull that amount of money

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Exactly what i said, a civil company can't just get the money to go to space and set a incredibly expensive jobs that will incredibly improve humanity, but only governments can pull that amount of money

Indeed. Companies are only just now able to even touch into orbit, well after NASA has been sending robots to every planet in the solar system, studying the closest objects in detail, locating extrasolar planets, and set up a vast network of artificial satillites that every advanced society has taken advantage of on the government dime and that's only in recent decades - not to mention the heights achieved before NASA's budget keeps getting gutted.
Then there's the International Space Station, which was only possible because it was a collaboration between several space agencies and not just one.

[reverendjeremiah]

Republicans represent the RICH people

There..I fixed it for you.

...

The Democrats are the same way..you DO realize this dont you?

Typical asshole... no choice other than shit.