Regulations, bad or good?

[DC]

dZL25NSLhEA

Milton Friedman making his famous arguments against FDA and regulations in general.

But i disagree, i think we need regulations, i am happy we have institutions that do test things, for example electrical components must meet certain standards for it to be allowed to be sold.

What do you think? could we do without regulations?

[UNLoVedRebel]

Of course regulations are good. Libertarianism is for college undergrads who just discovered the individual idealism.

[DC]

oh well Milton makes some excellent points i think. sure i also think most regulations are good, and that Milton is to naive in this case and overrates bad names for companies or how easy it is to rename your company etc.

I think his arguments deserve a bit more than just hand waving :D

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Those against regulations of that kind would do good into looking into why the regulations were introduced in the first place.

Not to stifle the 'free market', but because when not regulated people selling stuff have no problems using rotten meat or defective products if it will make them money.

[DC]

in another Video Friedman shows an example of governmental regulation where someone is testing toy guns for children on noise-levels.

which seemed very laughable is actually quite important.

Do you want your kids to find out that some toy guns are indeed to loud and harm the kids ears? i don't. better have an institution that sets limits and tests these.

[nvidiot]

Regulation for regulations' sake is almost always stupid. But so is the idea that regulations are necessarily a bad idea.

[Dave Rogers]

Human knowledge has advanced so far that nobody can encompass all of it, even on a superficial level. I may or may not be able to tell whether meat is rotten, just by looking carefully at the time of purchase, but it may not be possible for me to tell whether a complex product utilising modern technology is defective, or even harmful. If, for example, I employ a workman to install a gas central heating system, I don't have the expertise to determine whether that system is venting carbon monoxide into my bedroom, and the only way it may become known is if I don't wake up one morning. In a Libertarian non-system, there might not be an onus on anyone to find out why I didn't wake up, so our incompetent workman never gets detected until so many people have died that the correlation is obvious.

Regulations, however, specify that the workman I employ has to follow a set of criteria that ensure that carbon monoxide is only released into a well-ventilated area where it can't re-enter the house. If he gets it wrong, there are laws that demand that the cause of my unexplained death be determined, and this will lead to exposure of the mistake so that other people won't suffer the same fate.

As with everything else, regulation needs to be applied reasonably, and - being human and fallible - we can get it wrong in either direction. But abolishing all regulation would simply remove the uncertainty, and make sure that we necessarily get it wrong.

Dave

[Delphinium]

Regulation is about setting standards that must be complied with to ensure that something or someone is going to work in the way intended. As others have said, as an individual even in the most ideal of situations it's not likely that I would have sufficient knowledge and expertise to work out if (for example) the paint on a toy is contaminated with lead or non-toxic before I give it to my child. Either the standard is there and regulation is enforced when it's breached or the alternative is finding out after the fact, when they've been poisoned.

There are good reasons why things are regulated, I'm sure you can find examples of some regulations that seem silly but if you look back far enough there is generally a very good reason why it was introduced.

[CDFingers]

Because humans are possessed of the "Moral Sense," we need regulations.

"The Moral Sense" term was coined by Mark Twain in his "The Mysterious Stranger." Essentially the term refers to how humans justify ugly things.

Humans are naturally greedy. Witness the Seven Deadly Sins.

Thus, in financial matters like those that take place in Big Banking and Big Finance, regulations prevent exploitation of the small by the big.

CDFingers

[Gawdzilla]

Deregulating the banking industry was a really good idea, now wasn't it?

[DC]

mmhhhh, whats gong on? A Milton Friedman video and no Libertarians here to defend him?

[kevinquinnyo]

mmhhhh, whats gong on? A Milton Friedman video and no Libertarians here to defend him?

I'll defend him.

Friedman on regulation, was always trying to make the simple point that regulation has a cost. A regulation should only be considered for implementation if the unregulated free market alternative is costlier than it would be with a regulation in place.

For instance: if your goal was simply to prevent death or injury, and that was your only goal, then you should support a regulation that states that all cars be destroyed and banned, and people are to wear full body, high impact protective suits, gas masks, and be required to stay in a 2 foot thick concrete bunker for the entirety of their lives. As long as everyone has food and water, hypothetically, this would prevent death.

So clearly there is a price for safety. (this is an extreme example for extreme's sake - it's absurd and would be economically and socially disastrous, obviously) If the regulation costs more than not regulating, then it should absolutely be abandoned.

Requiring seatbelts was always a point of good debate, in fact it's probably a good regulation/law. (costs less than NOT having that law) A regulation, however, that requires car manufacturers to equip all cars with 4 wheel drive and electronic traction control, is probably a bad idea. The cost to society would likely outweigh the benefit.

Another example: Banning texting while driving. Clearly, texting while driving is dangerous. No one would dispute this, the evidence is very clear. But if we look at how much people pay for a cell phone plan that incorporates texting as a feature, we can extrapolate how much we value an individual text message. We can then compare that to a Value of Statistical Life calculation, and then decide whether the regulation is more efficient, or not.

This is the point Friedman was always making in regard to regulation.

So the question, "Is regulation good or bad?" is not the right question. "Is [specific regulation] good or bad?" is a better one.

[DC]

I'll defend him.

Friedman on regulation, was always trying to make the simple point that regulation has a cost. A regulation should only be considered for implementation if the unregulated free market alternative is costlier than it would be with a regulation in place.

For instance: if your goal was simply to prevent death or injury, and that was your only goal, then you should support a regulation that states that all cars be destroyed and banned, and people are to wear full body, high impact protective suits, gas masks, and be required to stay in a 2 foot thick concrete bunker for the entirety of their lives. As long as everyone has food and water, hypothetically, this would prevent death.

So clearly there is a price for safety. (this is an extreme example for extreme's sake - it's absurd and would be economically and socially disastrous, obviously) If the regulation costs more than not regulating, then it should absolutely be abandoned.

Requiring seatbelts was always a point of good debate, in fact it's probably a good regulation/law. (costs less than NOT having that law) A regulation, however, that requires car manufacturers to equip all cars with 4 wheel drive and electronic traction control, is probably a bad idea. The cost to society would likely outweigh the benefit.

Another example: Banning texting while driving. Clearly, texting while driving is dangerous. No one would dispute this, the evidence is very clear. But if we look at how much people pay for a cell phone plan that incorporates texting as a feature, we can extrapolate how much we value an individual text message. We can then compare that to a Value of Statistical Life calculation, and then decide whether the regulation is more efficient, or not.

This is the point Friedman was always making in regard to regulation.

So the question, "Is regulation good or bad?" is not the right question. "Is [specific regulation] good or bad?" is a better one.

He said he would abolish the FDA, i mean when you abolish the FDA, which regulatory institution are you going to keep? ain't it one of the most important of all, and thus he sees all of their regulations as not worth it.

and do you seriously want to compare death people to the value of text messages?

risking other peoples life for texting while driving seems a total no go to me.
then i would prefer you people stop using seat belts, i think the chances are better for me to not getting hit by someone flying out of his car compared to not being driven over by a texting driver....

I can understand opposition to regulations that regulate risks that only are risks for the user. but when you drive a car, you always endanger other people. i cannot understand the opposition there. sure also there you can take it to far, life is dangerous.

[DC]

Human knowledge has advanced so far that nobody can encompass all of it, even on a superficial level. I may or may not be able to tell whether meat is rotten, just by looking carefully at the time of purchase, but it may not be possible for me to tell whether a complex product utilising modern technology is defective, or even harmful. If, for example, I employ a workman to install a gas central heating system, I don't have the expertise to determine whether that system is venting carbon monoxide into my bedroom, and the only way it may become known is if I don't wake up one morning. In a Libertarian non-system, there might not be an onus on anyone to find out why I didn't wake up, so our incompetent workman never gets detected until so many people have died that the correlation is obvious.

Regulations, however, specify that the workman I employ has to follow a set of criteria that ensure that carbon monoxide is only released into a well-ventilated area where it can't re-enter the house. If he gets it wrong, there are laws that demand that the cause of my unexplained death be determined, and this will lead to exposure of the mistake so that other people won't suffer the same fate.

As with everything else, regulation needs to be applied reasonably, and - being human and fallible - we can get it wrong in either direction. But abolishing all regulation would simply remove the uncertainty, and make sure that we necessarily get it wrong.

Dave
a very good example.

[kevinquinnyo]

He said he would abolish the FDA, i mean when you abolish the FDA, which regulatory institution are you going to keep? ain't it one of the most important of all, and thus he sees all of their regulations as not worth it.

and do you seriously want to compare death people to the value of text messages?

risking other peoples life for texting while driving seems a total no go to me.
then i would prefer you people stop using seat belts, i think the chances are better for me to not getting hit by someone flying out of his car compared to not being driven over by a texting driver....

I can understand opposition to regulations that regulate risks that only are risks for the user. but when you drive a car, you always endanger other people. i cannot understand the opposition there. sure also there you can take it to far, life is dangerous.

This is entirely the point though. The texting thing is a good example, because most texts are so trivial, ie - "whut r u doin 2nite, thinkin bout seein Inception again, wanna go?"

That text is not worth a human life. It's not even worth a cockroach's life. But how many texts are worth a human life? 10? 500 million?

The answer to that question is important. I don't know the answer, but I can tell you what it's not: It's not zero, and it's not infinity. There is an answer. And that's the point.

[Puppycow]

Isn't he basically saying that he wants lawyers, judges and juries to perform the role of the FDA?

Instead of the FDA testing drugs to to make sure they are safe and effective, just have people sue the crap out of them when they are not.

It sounds really persuasive when you hear him make the case, but I don't believe it would work so well in practice.

[MatildaGage]

Maybe people who think most/all regulation is bad are ignorant of history and human nature.

The former shows the latter, when unregulated, often reverts to greed, selfishness, or laziness.

Examples:

unregulated blood bank$ (http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Vein-Kathy-Seward-MacKay/dp/188418622X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1292681663&sr=8-1)

unregulated marketplace (http://apha.confex.com/apha/135am/techprogram/paper_166731.htm)

[kevinquinnyo]

Isn't he basically saying that he wants lawyers, judges and juries to perform the role of the FDA?

Instead of the FDA testing drugs to to make sure they are safe and effective, just have people sue the crap out of them when they are not.

It sounds really persuasive when you hear him make the case, but I don't believe it would work so well in practice.


How do you feel about software regulation? Would you say we need Homeland Security or FISMA to create some new agency to test all software before it is allowed to be online?

I personally don't download software or drivers or anything really, unless it's from a reputable source, or I can verify it's legit through majorgeeks.com (http://www.majorgeeks.com) or cnet, many of the other sites that perform that type of ratings for you. You can also just do a quick search and see if people in a forum are saying to stay away from it or not.

Just a thought - sure it might be apples and oranges, but tort is of course not the only tool we use to assure safety in less regulated markets.

[The Fallen Serpent]

Just a thought - sure it might be apples and oranges, but tort is of course not the only tool we use to assure safety in less regulated markets.

I think this is key. Each market needs the regulations (self or governmental) tailored to it. Food is something I prefer under government regulation. Software only needs a certain degree of government regulation, but since food poisoning is not an issue with software I can handle more market forces working on that market.

[CDFingers]

imagineaa wrote about human nature.

Humans are by nature greedy. We are also the only species who kills for sport. Thus, regulations protect us from the rest of us.

Regulations are necessary and proper, yet they must allow for the exercise of liberty. Tough call, but imperative.

CDFingers

[kevinquinnyo]

I think this is key. Each market needs the regulations (self or governmental) tailored to it. Food is something I prefer under government regulation. Software only needs a certain degree of government regulation, but since food poisoning is not an issue with software I can handle more market forces working on that market.

You seem to be very matter of factly stating that government does a better or more thorough job, so important things should not be left to the market alone.

You also seem to be implying that food safety is a more important/pressing issue than computer safety. Do you know how much damage in dollars each problem causes? (in a vacuum)

Also, are you saying that food is just too important, or are you saying that food safety needs a special tactic of regulation that only a government can provide, and that the simpler problem of software inspection can easily be done by the less able market?

edit: and to clarify my position: I think the task of inspecting software, and what the FDA does are actually quite similar the more I think about it - it's impossible for the FDA to check every product, and it would be impossible for a simple agency to check all software... might be closer to an apples to apples comparison than I initially thought.

[DC]

You seem to be very matter of factly stating that government does a better or more thorough job, so important things should not be left to the market alone.

You also seem to be implying that food safety is a more important/pressing issue than computer safety. Do you know how much damage in dollars each problem causes? (in a vacuum)

Also, are you saying that food is just too important, or are you saying that food safety needs a special tactic of regulation that only a government can provide, and that the simpler problem of software inspection can easily be done by the less able market?

edit: and to clarify my position: I think the task of inspecting software, and what the FDA does are actually quite similar the more I think about it - it's impossible for the FDA to check every product, and it would be impossible for a simple agency to check all software... might be closer to an apples to apples comparison than I initially thought.

you seem to believe you can weigh Human Life with Money........

[Ziggurat]

What do you think? could we do without regulations?

The question is essentially irrelevant, because people want some level of regulation, so in a democracy, that's what we're going to get.

The relevant question is whether we should have more or less regulation than we have now. And I think we should have less. There's this idea that regulations prevent abuses by powerful commercial interests, and sometimes they do. But often they don't. And that's both because the people who draft regulations and the people who enforce them don't always know what they're doing, and because of regulatory capture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture). Big business loves regulation, because it strangles small competitors, and they can adapt it to suit their needs.

A great example was the whole lead in toys debacle. Mattel had a bunch of lead in toys they manufactured from China, so Congress enacts a new law requiring that toy manufacturers do lots of testing on their toys. The law requires that these tests be performed by 3rd party labs. But Mattel, the company that sparked the whole thing, gets an exemption (http://www.newsinferno.com/defective-products/cpsc-exempts-mattel-from-toy-testing-requirement/) to do the testing in-house, saving them money. They screw up, and their small-time competitors get the shaft.

[The Fallen Serpent]

You seem to be very matter of factly stating that government does a better or more thorough job, so important things should not be left to the market alone.It depends on the goals of the specific regulations and markets. In this case I would say government agencies in general are better than market forces in general at securing food safety. There are always outliers but I am talking in general. It is not a matter of importance necessarily, more a matter of which problems and setups work best for each type of market. If market forces could be demonstated to be better at securing food safety I would be okay with moving in that direction. Though I do not think markets of minor import need regulations necessarily. For instance I do not think the color of buildings need to be regulated unless they are tall enough to be hit planes or some other unusual circumstance. The benefit of regulating to that extreme would not be worth the cost. The cost being in general, not just money.

You also seem to be implying that food safety is a more important/pressing issue than computer safety. Do you know how much damage in dollars each problem causes? (in a vacuum)I would say the cost in poor food safety is greater than the great monetary cost caused by poor software safety. For one, software problems are in general easier to trace. If I fall ill to food poisoning, it is more difficult to objectively determine which meal was the cause.

Also, are you saying that food is just too important, or are you saying that food safety needs a special tactic of regulation that only a government can provide, and that the simpler problem of software inspection can easily be done by the less able market?I would not say the market is less able as market forces are certainly excellent in many regards. However the pros/cons of market forces versus government regulation are different. Depending on the nature of the market being looked at, a different approach might be necessary. In my opinion government agencies are in general more suited to tasks of health and safety. Market forces generally steer effeciency towards different goals. Government agencies are more flexible in the types of goals they can accomplish.

edit: and to clarify my position: I think the task of inspecting software, and what the FDA does are actually quite similar the more I think about it - it's impossible for the FDA to check every product, and it would be impossible for a simple agency to check all software... might be closer to an apples to apples comparison than I initially thought.
In terms of spot checking, yes it is similar. In terms of what happens when inspection fails, they are different. Software problems would mostly be monetary and frustration issues. Food safety issues are mostly about sickness and fatality. If a software could easily spread a contaminant that could kill people on a regular basis, then the type of regulations needed might be more like food regulations. Since the purpose of this supposed software regulation is mostly about monetary and time effeciency on a personal or business scale, I think market forces are great for that. There is government regulation on software when it affects issues of health and safety. For instance industries using dangerous chemicals have documentation demands that puts a regulatory demand on software. Some programs have to have certain certifications for use in some applications.

[theprestige]

you seem to believe you can weigh Human Life with Money........

Safeguarding Human Life requires resources. Safety has a cost. For convenience's sake, we measure resources and costs in terms of money.

You're welcome to weigh human life with chickens, or ounces of gold, or acres of land, but at the end of the day, weigh it you will. Indeed, you weigh your own life with money every day.

How much do you pay for life insurance? However much it is, that's you weighing your life with money. How much do you pay for health care? How much do you think your government should tax you, for to provide for your health care and the care of your fellow citizens? Do you think your government should tax you 100% of your earnings, for things like national defense and universal health coverage? No? Congratulations, you're weighing human life with money.

[kevinquinnyo]

Safeguarding Human Life requires resources. Safety has a cost. For convenience's sake, we measure resources and costs in terms of money.

You're welcome to weigh human life with chickens, or ounces of gold, or acres of land, but at the end of the day, weigh it you will. Indeed, you weigh your own life with money every day.

How much do you pay for life insurance? However much it is, that's you weighing your life with money. How much do you pay for health care? How much do you think your government should tax you, for to provide for your health care and the care of your fellow citizens? Do you think your government should tax you 100% of your earnings, for things like national defense and universal health coverage? No? Congratulations, you're weighing human life with money.

Well said. QFT.

[Puppycow]

How do you feel about software regulation? Would you say we need Homeland Security or FISMA to create some new agency to test all software before it is allowed to be online?

I personally don't download software or drivers or anything really, unless it's from a reputable source, or I can verify it's legit through majorgeeks.com (http://www.majorgeeks.com) or cnet, many of the other sites that perform that type of ratings for you. You can also just do a quick search and see if people in a forum are saying to stay away from it or not.

Just a thought - sure it might be apples and oranges, but tort is of course not the only tool we use to assure safety in less regulated markets.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying everything should be regulated.

I think the main difference is that when you buy crap software, you don't die as a result. We've seen what it was like before the FDA. You can actually go look at the history of patent medicines. We also know that lots of people are susceptible to woo. We would be inundated with all kinds of "miracle cures" for cancer and everything else, and while us skeptics might be able to defend ourselves, lots of regular people would fall prey, as they did in the past to traveling medicine shows and such.

And suing them might prove not to work so well. They might not have enough money to make all the people whole who were injured. In the case of companies, executives may not care if the company gets sued into bankruptcy as long as they get paid big bonuses before the ship goes down.

[kevinquinnyo]

you seem to believe you can weigh Human Life with Money........

See theprestige's comment, but let me add one thing here:

I value my own life, and the life of a dear friend or family member at x -> infinity.

The Value of a Statistical Life on the other hand... it's probably about 7 million dollars. I didn't just make that up either, look it up for yourself.

edit: I just re-read that and it sounds a bit flippant, wasn't trying to be... :)

[DC]

Safeguarding Human Life requires resources. Safety has a cost. For convenience's sake, we measure resources and costs in terms of money.

You're welcome to weigh human life with chickens, or ounces of gold, or acres of land, but at the end of the day, weigh it you will. Indeed, you weigh your own life with money every day.

How much do you pay for life insurance? However much it is, that's you weighing your life with money. How much do you pay for health care? How much do you think your government should tax you, for to provide for your health care and the care of your fellow citizens? Do you think your government should tax you 100% of your earnings, for things like national defense and universal health coverage? No? Congratulations, you're weighing human life with money.

true

[DC]

See theprestige's comment, but let me add one thing here:

I value my own life, and the life of a dear friend or family member at x -> infinity.

The Value of a Statistical Life on the other hand... it's probably about 7 million dollars. I didn't just make that up either, look it up for yourself.

ok, but i just found it strange to compare something that cost human life versus something that will "merely" cause material damage.

ETA: and btw, also the statistical life are considered x -> infinity by at least someone.

[theprestige]

ETA: and btw, also the statistical life are considered x -> infinity by at least someone.

True, but that doesn't mean it's feasible (or appropriate) for your x->infinity opinion to be codified as law and enforced as government regulation.

[The True Scotsman]

Hmm...always an interesting topic.

One thing I'm certain of in this matter is that requiring a certain level of information to consumers about each product is generally a good thing (ex: nutrition tables on food products, side-effects on drugs, and safety warnings on possibly dangerous goods like gas-grills). This would require companies (or other approved third party sources) to gather this information, which would probably delay the release of the given product, but at least it would ensure a minimum level of safety.

ETA: I do see that the market can assume the role of regulation as well, so governmental regulation is not the only option, but, in my opinion, usually it is the most effective means of regulating (Key example of market based regulation: accreditation institutions like FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) and MSC (Marine Stewardship Council)).

[Travis]

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying everything should be regulated.

I think the main difference is that when you buy crap software, you don't die as a result. We've seen what it was like before the FDA. You can actually go look at the history of patent medicines. We also know that lots of people are susceptible to woo. We would be inundated with all kinds of "miracle cures" for cancer and everything else, and while us skeptics might be able to defend ourselves, lots of regular people would fall prey, as they did in the past to traveling medicine shows and such.

And suing them might prove not to work so well. They might not have enough money to make all the people whole who were injured. In the case of companies, executives may not care if the company gets sued into bankruptcy as long as they get paid big bonuses before the ship goes down.


This. Chances a company executive actually cares about human life? 3%

Private business is great at innovation but is hugely immoral which is why I want it regulated tightly especially when lives are at stake.

[Ziggurat]

This. Chances a company executive actually cares about human life? 3%

Do you think politicians or regulatory bureaucrats care more about human life?

If so, why?

[DC]

Do you think politicians or regulatory bureaucrats care more about human life?

If so, why?

because that is their job and if they suck at it they lose it.
the companies job is to make profit. when they suck at protecting life but still make profit, all is fine.

[tkmikkelsen]

imagineaa wrote about human nature.

Humans are by nature greedy. We are also the only species who kills for sport. Thus, regulations protect us from the rest of us.

Regulations are necessary and proper, yet they must allow for the exercise of liberty. Tough call, but imperative.

CDFingers

How about cats?
They often kill for no other reason than it is fun, they even like to play with their victim before the make the kill.

[tkmikkelsen]

While I do agree with an institution like the FDA should exists, so that I don't have to worry about everything that I buy at the supermarket.
I don't agree with something like the FCC, but they are really doing the same thing, namely regulating what is acceptable to be released to the public.

So am I perhaps a hypocrite?

[stevea]

dZL25NSLhEA

Milton Friedman making his famous arguments against FDA and regulations in general.

But i disagree, i think we need regulations, i am happy we have institutions that do test things, for example electrical components must meet certain standards for it to be allowed to be sold.

What do you think? could we do without regulations?

C'mon - you know the drill. Show some evidence of comparable systems with and without regulation. What we would really want to see is a cost analysis of a schema with and without central regulation. Including the hidden costs.

mmhhhh, whats gong on? A Milton Friedman video and no Libertarians here to defend him?

Perhaps b/c name-calling and equating libertarianism with anarchy is already baked into this thread. Some people are so threatened by Libertarian thought that they shift into mindless namecalling and gross mischaracterizations. Then we have the erroneous thought, already discussed elsewhere, that banking deregulation was the direct cause housing bubble & burst (ergo all regulation is wonderful and cost-free).

It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion with the closed-minded.
It's not possible to have a thoughtful discussion with those unwilling to question the positions they hold.
It's not possible to have a balanced evaluation without considering the costs of regulatory burden including stagnation of innovation.

I think we should regulate the currency (in ways that Bernanke seems to defy).
I think we should regulate our armies. and police and TSA and fire departments.

When it comes to food and drugs I am not immune to the argument the after-the-fact lawsuits cannot be adequate reparation for a loss of life or health, and prevention is highly preferrable. OTOH we should consider if FULL transparency is not sufficient.

REgulators didn't prevent lead paint in children's toys ? They certainly allowed melamine contaminated chinese fish sales to continue after the problem was known, perhaps due to political pressure. There is no point-of-origin labelling on fresh fish so there is insufficient disclosure.

There are paranoiac crack-pot hyper-regulators like David Kessler who think that putting sugar, salt and fat into recipes (just like my G-G-Gramma did) is some subversive mind-control plot by chain restaurants and must be stopped. If he wants to label/disclose restaurant items - I'm on board. If he wants to regulate I have a lot of problems with that.

There is a growing, but not conclusive body of evidence that fructose (as HFCS or sucrose) is a direct cause or metabolic syndrome, and that the O-6:0-3 fats ratio shift in foods in recent decades is a cause of certain types of metabolic disregulation. There are fine papers on the NIH website about these issues. There is no regulation, and it is probably too early to regulate these. OTOH full disclosure would allow people to make choices based on such possibilities.

Then consider trans-fats where the case against is clear and still laws only require disclosure on packaged foods - there is no regulation.

There are still scads of poorly labelled homeopathic remedies on shelves and in advertisements. Where are the regulators either banning or else disclosure requiring a bright red bozo stamp on the front ?

It appear to me that regulation isn't working very well, and also we don't have sufficient information disclosure to allow market forces to work.

I'd prefer disclosure and personal choice to regulation. Still if people want a government agency to pass rules so an item can carry a "meets government standards" label - that's fine, but it should not be a requirement for sale. If someone wants to knowingly buy raw milk or unpasteurized cider, or substandard pasta - that's their decision.

[DC]

C'mon - you know the drill. Show some evidence of comparable systems with and without regulation. What we would really want to see is a cost analysis of a schema with and without central regulation. Including the hidden costs.



Perhaps b/c name-calling and equating libertarianism with anarchy is already baked into this thread. Some people are so threatened by Libertarian thought that they shift into mindless namecalling and gross mischaracterizations. Then we have the erroneous thought, already discussed elsewhere, that banking deregulation was the direct cause housing bubble & burst (ergo all regulation is wonderful and cost-free).

It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion with the closed-minded.
It's not possible to have a thoughtful discussion with those unwilling to question the positions they hold.
It's not possible to have a balanced evaluation without considering the costs of regulatory burden including stagnation of innovation.

I think we should regulate the currency (in ways that Bernanke seems to defy).
I think we should regulate our armies. and police and TSA and fire departments.

When it comes to food and drugs I am not immune to the argument the after-the-fact lawsuits cannot be adequate reparation for a loss of life or health, and prevention is highly preferrable. OTOH we should consider if FULL transparency is not sufficient.

REgulators didn't prevent lead paint in children's toys ? They certainly allowed melamine contaminated chinese fish sales to continue after the problem was known, perhaps due to political pressure. There is no point-of-origin labelling on fresh fish so there is insufficient disclosure.

There are paranoiac crack-pot hyper-regulators like David Kessler who think that putting sugar, salt and fat into recipes (just like my G-G-Gramma did) is some subversive mind-control plot by chain restaurants and must be stopped. If he wants to label/disclose restaurant items - I'm on board. If he wants to regulate I have a lot of problems with that.

There is a growing, but not conclusive body of evidence that fructose (as HFCS or sucrose) is a direct cause or metabolic syndrome, and that the O-6:0-3 fats ratio shift in foods in recent decades is a cause of certain types of metabolic disregulation. There are fine papers on the NIH website about these issues. There is no regulation, and it is probably too early to regulate these. OTOH full disclosure would allow people to make choices based on such possibilities.

Then consider trans-fats where the case against is clear and still laws only require disclosure on packaged foods - there is no regulation.

There are still scads of poorly labelled homeopathic remedies on shelves and in advertisements. Where are the regulators either banning or else disclosure requiring a bright red bozo stamp on the front ?

It appear to me that regulation isn't working very well, and also we don't have sufficient information disclosure to allow market forces to work.

I'd prefer disclosure and personal choice to regulation. Still if people want a government agency to pass rules so an item can carry a "meets government standards" label - that's fine, but it should not be a requirement for sale. If someone wants to knowingly buy raw milk or unpasteurized cider, or substandard pasta - that's their decision.

Everyone in this thread so far agreed that Regulation for regulation's sake is nonsense.

it is Friedman that wanted to make the case of no government regulations.

Also it is clear, that just because it is the government, or just because it is the market doing the regulations is not a guarantee for its success or failure.

The regulators have to be transparent, watched and accountable for their decisions.

And i think there is the point where i think such regulations are best done by a Government.

Also important here would be the accountability of the government in general.
While i am no fan of centralization, regulations should be regulated central (National) as far it makes sense, to reduce cost.

And also bad examples of cases where governmental regulation failed doesn't really make the case for no gov regulations. There are just as many if not more examples of failed market regulations or no regulations at all.

i also try to be open minded.
I that want to go further than Social Democracy have watched every episode of his, Power to choose and other video debates and lectures of him.
He makes excellent points sometimes, even when i mostly do not agree with him.

and just because you opponents don't get convinced by your ideas and arguments, doesn't mean they are close-minded.

And Libertarian thought are not feared because it such a good and powerful idea, but rather because many people see a lot of danger in it.

[DC]

I'd prefer disclosure and personal choice to regulation. Still if people want a government agency to pass rules so an item can carry a "meets government standards" label - that's fine, but it should not be a requirement for sale. If someone wants to knowingly buy raw milk or unpasteurized cider, or substandard pasta - that's their decision.

it depends on the product. when the use of the product only poses a danger to you, then i am fine with a non labeled item. But when you use something that would also pose a danger to me, i want it to be regulated. Here is your freedom overlaping my freedom.

When you want to use an electrical shaver that was not tested on its savety, well fine for me.
But when your car does not meet certain standards, then your car poses a danger to me.

[psionl0]

If regulation was just about safeguarding people against the criminal actions of big corporations or individuals putting profits before public safety then few people would argue against it.

However, much regulation is simply to ensure that government is as big as possible.

[DC]

If regulation was just about safeguarding people against the criminal actions of big corporations or individuals putting profits before public safety then few people would argue against it.

However, much regulation is simply to ensure that government is as big as possible.

then you should remove those regulations that are not needed.
you got some examples?

[psionl0]

then you should remove those regulations that are not needed.
you got some examples?
Do you know how many new laws and regulations are created by governments each year? Multiply that by the amount of work bureaucracies make people do to comply with all of these regulations (which creates a need for bigger bureaucracies) and it becomes apparent that the basic need for fundamental regulations has long been surpassed by a process that simply increases the size of government.

[Loss Leader]

What do you think? could we do without regulations?


It is impossible to do without regulation. So long as consumers can choose a product that works over one that will kill them, there will always be some mode of regulation. The question is whether it is a good thing to privatize regulation.

This generally involves letting a product injure or kill somebody and then suing the manufacturer. A costly suit (as when a car is unsafe at any speed) will induce the corporation to build a safer product. The cost of regulating is borne entirely by the consumer.

In many instances, socialization of the regulatory function is necessary to protect lives that the company could never compensate. A bad drug that kills 10,000 people would bring so many suits for so much $ that it's cheaper for everyone just to force the company to test the drug and prove to the people that it works.

[CDFingers]

Whether cats kill for fun is sort of a lame comparison, as the cats eventually eat what they kill.

Unregulated capitalism eats before killing...

CDFingers

[oggiesnr]

Do you know how many new laws and regulations are created by governments each year? Multiply that by the amount of work bureaucracies make people do to comply with all of these regulations (which creates a need for bigger bureaucracies) and it becomes apparent that the basic need for fundamental regulations has long been surpassed by a process that simply increases the size of government.

Examples please.

[Ranb]

in another Video Friedman shows an example of governmental regulation where someone is testing toy guns for children on noise-levels.

which seemed very laughable is actually quite important.

Which makes it all the more strange that a government would discourage the use of devices that reduce the noise of real guns, or prohibit their use by anyone. I am involved in a problem regarding firearm noise, and the local politicians are part of that problem. Regulations and statutes are getting in the way of making the area around my gun club a better place to live. An example of regulation just because they can.

Ranb

[DC]

Which makes it all the more strange that a government would discourage the use of devices that reduce the noise of real guns, or prohibit their use by anyone. I am involved in a problem regarding firearm noise, and the local politicians are part of that problem. Regulations and statutes are getting in the way of making the area around my gun club a better place to live. An example of regulation just because they can.

Ranb

a lot Parents discourage their kids to play with real guns.

I think there is a bit of a difference, and with silencers i thought the problem is crime. But i cannot see why that should not be allowed in a Gun Club. There it seems to be a huge advantage for surrounding people. But as far i know, Here you can get a license for Silencers, but most don't use them in gun clubs.

I think its more an example of bad or incomplete regulating.

[Ranb]

There is very little silencer related crime in the USA, even less with registered (no license, just pay a tax) silencers which are the only ones that are legal to own. It is a matter of perception. Even many gun owners think of silencers as tools for the police military and criminals, not as safety devices.

But my current problem is not with silencers intended for use on portable firearms. It is devices that are not attached to the gun, like shooting boxes (for inserting the rifle barrel), sound isolated shooting enclosures, berms, baffles etc. Anything used to reduce firearm noise is illegal where I live. The State uses this statute to keep guns noisy and does not stand in the way when people move in close, then complain and file lawsuits.

The local government is very aware of the problems, but refuses to do anything about it. They could zone property to keep homes and schools away from shooting areas, or allow the use of devices to reduce noise. But any attempt to do something about the noise (other than ban shooting) is not allowed to be passed into law.

Ranb

[DC]

There is very little silencer related crime in the USA, even less with registered (no license, just pay a tax) silencers which are the only ones that are legal to own. It is a matter of perception. Even many gun owners think of silencers as tools for the police military and criminals, not as safety devices.

But my current problem is not with silencers intended for use on portable firearms. It is devices that are not attached to the gun, like shooting boxes (for inserting the rifle barrel), sound isolated shooting enclosures, berms, baffles etc. Anything used to reduce firearm noise is illegal where I live. The State uses this statute to keep guns noisy and does not stand in the way when people move in close, then complain and file lawsuits.

The local government is very aware of the problems, but refuses to do anything about it. They could zone property to keep homes and schools away from shooting areas, or allow the use of devices to reduce noise. But any attempt to do something about the noise (other than ban shooting) is not allowed to be passed into law.

Ranb

I would say start a peoples Initiative when you can in that state. Or whatever mechanism you use to make the gov work like the people want.

[Ranb]

I am actively lobbying the state government for now. I have been thinking about the initiative, but have to learn more about them. They seem to work ok when it comes to limiting government or taxes, but I do not think people will care too much about a gun control initiative unless it is to put more restrictions on them. :)

Ranb

[DC]

I am actively lobbying the state government for now. I have been thinking about the initiative, but have to learn more about them. They seem to work ok when it comes to limiting government or taxes, but I do not think people will care too much about a gun control initiative unless it is to put more restrictions on them. :)

Ranb

sell it as restriction then :D
Gunclubs near schools etc, must have noise protection. and other may have.

[Ranb]

Hmmmmmmmmm. Adding another restriction that happens to help silencer owners like myself, but creates a burden for others is going to make me very popular indeed hahahahahhaha. Requiring a certain amount of sound isolation for rifle ranges located near residences is a good idea, until the county uses it as a means of forcing the clubs to upgrade (if they can afford it) or go out of business.

The rifle ranges in Washington State are already exempt from noise regulations. Why this does not shield them from noise lawsuits I do not know.

Ranb

[CDFingers]

Regulations on capitalism are supposed to protect the weak from the strong and to protect global finance from predation.

CDFingers