|
|
 Originally Posted by boost
Here's another example for you. Without regulation, there would be no restaurant inspections. Although I, being on the side of the restaurant, normally view inspections as an annoyance, they are necessary. Without them a place can serve unsafe food and put peoples lives on the line. Yes the business will be shuttered eventually, but others who don't have high standards will continue to open unsafe restaurants. Inspection (and therefore regulation) can actually be seen as a benefit for businesses; we could easily imagine a consumer base that is fearful of trying out the new restaurant on the block since it hasn't been proven to be safe.
The crazy thing is that we already know this. The data is overwhelming for all the benefits of intelligent public sector regulations. I am seriously baffled that right-wing economic idealists don't realize they're pushing for legalized fraud
Even if we accept the idea of self correcting markets for truth, we have to figure out on what sort of time frame they self correct. Is the "freedom" gained worth the damage suffered before the market corrects itself?
I don't even wanna go there. "Self-correcting markets" is one of the biggest lies in history. I'm not going to lend credence to the idea by giving it in the remotest gravitas. It's also retarded since "self-correcting" is ambiguous enough to apply to anything
People need to do some research on slavery, and realize that there is zero difference between right-wing economics and slavery. And this is OBVIOUS, it's just so insanely baffling.
I just have absolutely no clue how people can argue against centralized power then argue FOR centralized power
|
Reply With Quote