Proper role of government regulation?

[shocker315]

I understand and believe in the principle of "the government that governs best governs least". However there is an aspect that I am constantly racking my brain to reconcile.

The most basic common response to small and limited government from our collectivist friends is that the growth of government is necessary to "protect the public". A minimal and limited government (like at the founding of the US) is expanded over time as the public pleads to the government to "do something" (pass coercive legislation) to remedy a real or perceived problem that manifests itself in the free market.

Some of these problems are may be legitimate. For example: unsafe working conditions, poor drinking water, unsafe food, or unsanitary conditions. The public lobbies the government to pass safety standards or coercive regulations of the free market to correct these problems. I realize its debatable how well these regulations have worked, however in some cases it appears to have helped raise the general public health/welfare.

However, once the Pandora's box of government regulation is opened on the public, it is tough to close again. What appears to be successful regulation in one area that improves the public health or well being, is then used as justification for a whole host of further regulations and other government intrusions on other areas of the free market. Leading to an ever growing government that has culminated in the massive bureaucracy of today.

My questions is...Is there a standard or principle to help determine the appropriate level of government regulation of the free market..if any? Nearly anyone you ask will say that at least a minimal level of government regulation is necessary for public health, safety, or say perhaps, to enforce fair business practices or break monopolies. That would seem so? Do you agree?

However, the goals of public health, public safety, and fair business practices can be expanded to include a whole host of additional coercive regulations of the free market leading to ever growing intrusive government.

But if we say government regulation is acceptable in some circumstances how do we determine if it is not acceptable in others? Of course, that's what political arguments revolve around every day. Is there a clear standard to reconcile these arguments. What is the proper level of government regulation of the free market?

 

[Kludge]

But if we say government regulation is acceptable in some circumstances how do we determine if it is not acceptable in others? Of course, that's what political arguments revolve around every day. Is there a clear standard to reconcile these arguments. What is the proper level of government regulation of the free market?

It's the job of consumer watch groups and other organizations offering labels for products meeting their standards.

That said, fraud is force. Gov'ts ONLY role is to protect property (which is from where all rights stem).

 

[Acala]

Force and fraud

The only legitimate job of government is to protect lives and property from the use of force or fraud.

The market can handle the rest.

 

[Dr.3D]

The most basic common response to small and limited government from our collectivist friends is that the growth of government is necessary to "protect the public". A minimal and limited government (like at the founding of the US) is expanded over time as the public pleads to the government to "do something" (pass coercive legislation) to remedy a real or perceived problem that manifests itself in the free market.

Have you noticed all of the "crisis" situations that have been getting in the news more and more lately? It is my belief those "crises" are made up by the government to get the people concerned and afraid so they will plead for more government involvement.

Seems like every time I look at the news, they are talking about a new crisis.

 

[angelatc]

I understand and believe in the principle of "the government that governs best governs least". However there is an aspect that I am constantly racking my brain to reconcile.

The most basic common response to small and limited government from our collectivist friends is that the growth of government is necessary to "protect the public". A minimal and limited government (like at the founding of the US) is expanded over time as the public pleads to the government to "do something" (pass coercive legislation) to remedy a real or perceived problem that manifests itself in the free market.

Some of these problems are may be legitimate. For example: unsafe working conditions, poor drinking water, unsafe food, or unsanitary conditions. The public lobbies the government to pass safety standards or coercive regulations of the free market to correct these problems. I realize its debatable how well these regulations have worked, however in some cases it appears to have helped raise the general public health/welfare.

However, once the Pandora's box of government regulation is opened on the public, it is tough to close again. What appears to be successful regulation in one area that improves the public health or well being, is then used as justification for a whole host of further regulations and other government intrusions on other areas of the free market. Leading to an ever growing government that has culminated in the massive bureaucracy of today.

My questions is...Is there a standard or principle to help determine the appropriate level of government regulation of the free market..if any? Nearly anyone you ask will say that at least a minimal level of government regulation is necessary for public health, safety, or say perhaps, to enforce fair business practices or break monopolies. That would seem so? Do you agree?

However, the goals of public health, public safety, and fair business practices can be expanded to include a whole host of additional coercive regulations of the free market leading to ever growing intrusive government.

But if we say government regulation is acceptable in some circumstances how do we determine if it is not acceptable in others? Of course, that's what political arguments revolve around every day. Is there a clear standard to reconcile these arguments. What is the proper level of government regulation of the free market?

How about reading the Constitution? The result of that will be allowing each state to decide.

 

[DriftWood]

The best think would probably be to sell the commons.. like selling fresh water lakes to some private companies. They would sell us fresh drinking water, and if some other company polluted its water supplies.. that would mean a loss for the first companies, as it would mean an increase in the cost of producing clean drinking water, and they would sue for the even the smallest breach.

The problem of commons, is that it is common ownership.. so noone cares enough to sue when someone damages it a bit. When there is only one owner you can betcha it will look after the resource better, simply because it is profitable to do so.

It getts a bit tricky with commons like clean air.. should a company own it, and how do we pay it for breathing? How could a consumer switch supplier, if he was not satisfied with the service? (imagine a thousand years from now, maybe the air is so polluted that buildings dont use the outside air, but have their own supply of clean air that it bought from some company. And maybe there are inclosed parks with clean air. Maybe there even is small inclosed towns that keep the air inside separate from the air outside)

Cheers

 

[Ozwest]

Nice Post shocker 315.

There are no easy answers.

There is no Nirvana.

Sure as shit though...

Authority achieved through public apathy, corporate greed, the military industrial complex, and un-checked political cronyism, especially on a federal level.

Is dangerous...

America is a Republic.

Not a corporate - fascist - monarchy.

At least, it used to be.

 

[scooter]

I always say that government involvement OVER the markets can be okay, like protecting against fraud or providing regulations that require public companies to accurately report their finances and such.

The government involvement that is bad is when the government gets involved IN the markets.

 

[Ozwest]

I always say that government involvement OVER the markets can be okay, like protecting against fraud or providing regulations that require public companies to accurately report their finances and such.

The government involvement that is bad is when the government gets involved IN the markets.

Scooter,

I reckon the markets are over-inflated shit.

Credit is a scam.

It has only been 30 years or so since people have decided debt is acceptable.

Wrong move.

 

[Ozwest]

I always say that government involvement OVER the markets can be okay, like protecting against fraud or providing regulations that require public companies to accurately report their finances and such.

The government involvement that is bad is when the government gets involved IN the markets.

Right now.

Debt is not good.