Counter this question about Regulations

[TheGrinch]

So I linked up Dr. Paul's position on regulations on another board, and got this response back:

This is not a binary question.

It is not on or off. It is not black and white.

Regulations do often fulfill their goal but not 100%. This doesn't make them worthless, it merely means that some percentage of people / businesses will find a way around or there will be a regulatory failure. For example, someone imports toys with lead in them because they have ignored regulations or have not been sufficiently diligent or they were themselves lied to and the consignment was missed, so is the regulation wrong? No, because the vast majority of toys imported will NOT have lead in them. Why not? Because, due to the regulation, businesses won't import them if they can avoid it.

I have said this before and will say it again - most regulations on businesses are self-inflicted. In other words, government has stepped in to ensure the safety or general welfare of the population. The whole concept of business being entirely self-regulating is complete nonsense.

I realize some fallacies, such as Mattel recalling their lead toys from China, not because of regulations, but because of the negative publicity and drops in revenue. Same could be said for BP.

I also feel the need to emphasize that lobbyists can have a large hand in regulations, making for preferential treatment, but I don't want to just go with theoretical arguments, but real-world examples too. Any suggestions?

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Regulations do exist in a Free-Market. But the regulations are used to separate corporate, private sector, and political powers instead of entwine them.

 

[dannno]

Government's role is to protect individual liberty, life and property.

Individuals need to take on the responsibility to regulate the purchases they make because the only alternative is to have them made for you by government. When they do that, they WILL make mistakes and their WILL be corruption.

In the free market, upon finding out that lead is poisoness the market would demand assurance that the products they are buying are lead free. Companies like Mattel would come out and say "we don't have any lead in our products". If an independent test was done and found that their products contained lead, then people would find this information valuable and they would purchase it in the form of a consumer magazine or otherwise. Word would get out and Mattel would have to correct the situation and people would be less trusting of them. Another big toy company may have a clean test and consumers might decide to trust that company instead. So it is more beneficial for them not to have lead.

The point is the free market regulates much better than the government because of what is called, "moral hazard". The very fact that the government has come out and said that consumers are protected by regulations causes people to be careless about their purchasing decisions. Government isn't very good at regulating anyway, even when they have good intentions.

Some people say they are lazy and would rather have the government take care of it then have to research products on their own. These people are retarded to think that government is going to have their best interest in mind when the government is being run by corporations.

 

[Ryan_G]

Companies would avoid importing toys with lead out of fear of being sued out of existence. I'm pretty sure regulations can help companies avoid responsibility - because "hey - it's not our fault, we were within the regulations". There are also consumer advocacy groups like the BBB that companies would seek approval from, not to mention a companies reputation in general. I doubt Mattel would like a reputation for selling unsafe toys, and would do their best to avoid it.

 

[sailingaway]

There is no Constitutional authority for administrators to create law.

 

[TheGrinch]

All great points so far. Keep 'em coming.

But if I claim that most of this can be handled simply through torts, how do I counter the very real fact that corporations have much better lawyers that find loopholes in these regulations in the first place, who would probably do moreso in a non-regulatory civil suit?

Something I've been wondering myself.

 

[The Gold Standard]

When you have a free market and strictly enforced property rights, the regulations are much tougher. If Mattel's toys were dangerous and hurt a lot of people, guess who would be bankrupted from fighting lawsuits in court? What's more strict, that or slapping a fine on them?

Most of the time, lobbyists write the regulations to make it more expensive to enter an industry, limiting their competition. The politicians are happy to oblige so they can give those million dollar speeches when they are out of office. The government fails at everything they try to do, especially regulating the economy.

 

[sailingaway]

I'd say you could have laws under the Constitution, because that is authorized but most things should be by state and less intervention is better than more because people make mistakes and when they do it in law you are stuck with it a long long time, and there grows a constituency for the mistake that does not want you to correct it -- whichever 'winner' was picked by the law. And individuals are better represented as locally as possible where they can actually show up and influence policy. The more distant and centralized the lawmaking body, the 'bigger' you have to be to have any impact.

But that is just me.

 

[enoch150]

So I linked up Dr. Paul's position on regulations on another board, and got this response back:



I realize some fallacies, such as Mattel recalling their lead toys from China, not because of regulations, but because of the negative publicity and drops in revenue. Same could be said for BP.

I also feel the need to emphasize that lobbyists can have a large hand in regulations, making for preferential treatment, but I don't want to just go with theoretical arguments, but real-world examples too. Any suggestions?

Companies want to maximize sales. If all of their consumers are being harmed, sales fall off a cliff. It is in a company's best interest to ensure a safe product.

Real world examples:

http://buildaroo.com/news/article/walmart-voluntarily-testing-cadmium/

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=193

 

[Diurdi]

Some regulations are better than others, this is true. Some are disastrous, some have almost no effect, some are vital to balance out previous government legislation.

Most regulations that are "self inflicted", are inflicted to limit competition in an industry so that the established players can keep new players out, hurting consumers in the process.

I believe it's best just to show specific examples of regulations that you consider especially bad, most liberals think all regulations are essential. Their argument for why they are essential is pretty much just "well if they are not, why were they implemented in the first place?"

 

[Orwell]

Honestly, I do believe when you start discussing health and safety, it's by far the weakest point of the libertarian and free market philosophies. You can easily say the market will correct, but if it's your child that is dead, it's a different story. I still believe it's probably the BEST methodology, but it's a little simplistic an argument.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Honestly, I do believe when you start discussing health and safety, it's by far the weakest point of the libertarian and free market philosophies. You can easily say the market will correct, but if it's your child that is dead, it's a different story. I still believe it's probably the BEST methodology, but it's a little simplistic an argument.

Well I think it depends what type of libertarian you are.

If you are an anarchist, no regulations.

If you are a small government type, the regulation would be that a restaurant cannot be misleading people and giving them bad food, and if they do they are liable. Some of that can be preventive regulations IMO. But most of the time the regulations are absurd.

 

[sailingaway]

I don't go all the way on that. But I'm ok with being just a 'prove we can't do it better without government' small government Constitutionalist. I think government is a LAST resort.