I know this will ruffle the feathers of some libertarians, but the sad truth is that more healthy regulation that is pro-society as a whole, actually helps preserve the freedom that we enjoy. Not all regulation is created equal - it really depends on the regulation - e.x. while regulating the size of a soda at a theme park may be stupid and pointless, keeping hard drugs like meth and heroin, and violent media away from children, is good. The reason it preserves freedom is this. If society has no or very little regulation, then it's anarchy, and becomes an idiocracy. People who behave stupid and unproductively will win out over those who are more productive and social conscious. As an example, take a look at any Internet discussion board (like 4chan) where there is little to no moderation whatsoever - it becomes a cess pit for trolls and porno freaks, and anyone with more than 1 IQ point wouldn't even bother to waste time there. So when society becomes totally deregulated - it just causes idiocy and laziness to prevail over intelligence and hard work. Take a look at Detroit and any black ghetto - this is the by-product of idiocry, and children growing up without a father, getting their morals from gangsta rappers instead. . Hypothetically, if America as a whole became like Detroit - then it wouldn't be long before we'd be living under a dictator. Because people who're so far gone that they can't manage themselves anymore look to charismatic and powerful leaders to do everything for them, and these guys know how to prey on the public's naiveté to become all-powerful. By maintaining healthy regulation to prevent the idiots from prevailing, and reward the smart people for their efforts - we help prevent people from becoming so disorganized that they turn to real fascism - sure some libertarians will always (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about how disallowing meth labs in Kindergardens, or not allowing Middle Schoolers to watch R rated slasher films, is a violation of the Constitution or "fascism" whatever. But in the long run, healthy regulations- which encourages youth to be productive and moral citizens, help prevent societies from ever turning to real fascism. This is what libertarians don't get - that in the long run, the society they envision would just be one charismatic speaker away from being the 4th Reich.
Granny wantin' to know how dey gonna pay for it?... Report: Obama officials issued $216 billion in regulations last year 1/14/13 - The Obama administration issued $236 billion worth of new regulations last year, according to a report from a conservative think tank.
Almost no one rational is arguing that point. Some regulation is indeed necessary. However I'd argue we went beyond what was necessary not to long after WWII depending on what area of life you're talking about. Even the best regulations limit freedom in some way. It may be a limitation upon freedom that we all think ought to exist but it is none the less a limitation on freedom.
An inherently flawed statement. No, more regulation does not equal more freedom. Detroit didn't become a craphole because of a lack of regulation. What you also don't seem to be understanding is that the entire small government theory supports the possibility of strong regulation at the local level. Many cities have their own unique regulations, varying in degrees of toughness, but they know what they want, and (at least better than DC) what will work best for them. Houston's policies, for example, have fostered rapid growth and development. NYC, on the other hand, is already well developed and it's policies are not pro-growth because it's residents do not want it to grow, they are focused on other concerns, like managing crime, city cleanliness, and yes - stupid f***ing soda sizes. The point is, NYC is deciding what NYC wants. If I don't like NYC because it's become too stringent, I can go to Boston, or Seattle, or Portland (ME), or Atlanta, or San Diego, or Houston. If the feds set up these regulations, the only way to escape is to go to Canada. It violates the very principle that made us strong - self-governance. And, again, to be clear - more regulation does not (inherently) equal more freedom.
I was thinking something more along the lines of keeping monopolies from forming. Also no one is advocating that children do drugs, and much like drugs 'violent media' should not be taken from adults in favor of children. Parents need to watch after their kids, it's that simple. We are a nation living the real, adult world, not 360 million babysitters living for your children. Not only has stupidity won out, but regulation does not necessarily increase freedom. Two examples are making drugs illegal and censoring television. Again less law is not equal to anarchy. Even with the law places like you describe exist. Clearly there is an extent to what the law can do. We're much closer to the bold when there a laws set up to allow it to happen, as is our current situation. Without things like the NDAA, PATRIOT Act, people getting used to constant surveillance and searches, people getting used to militarized police forces, people getting used to losing liberty and having their rights eroded, it would be much more difficult for "one charismatic speaker" to enact fascism. So in summation, you're incorrect and I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that freedom is the road to fascism.
I hate how entitled parents have become, as far as parents expecting someone else to do their jobs. I mean the fact that I have to pay for their education isn't enough, I have to lose my freedoms to protect your kids as well. It is becoming insane at this point!
Sure, some regulation is needed. To spread the blanket of "more regulation = more freedom" in the title is absolutely wrong, and perhaps you're intentionally providing an absolute to support a misleading premise of: "Libertarians don't want any regulations". I hope that's not the case, but the gist of your post is an attack on Libertarians. When regulations/laws take away freedom, they are wrong. When laws are ineffective, or useless, they are wrong. The idiocracy you mention has already manifested itself in the "war on drugs". We see the idiocracy manifested in the current push to ban legal firearms in the misguided justification "...if it saves just one child". You mention drugs and children. For young children, I would hope that parents are engaged enough to prevent detrimental behaviors despite any laws. For instance, are there laws against a toddler putting his hand on a stove? As children grow older into teenagers, a natural progression includes rebellion against their parents, and the law. Just making a law or regulation doesn't stop behavior, and in many cases encourages it. The 18th Amendment is a prime example. An interesting section of your post is, "People who behave...unproductively will win out over those who are more productive..". Surprise! That's where we are in today's welfare society because of regulation.
Wrong on two points: Firstly, more regulation is less freedom. You're saying that regulation prevents those bad things from happening, and you're right, but that's not freedom, it's simply a healthier society. A healthy society =/= freedom. Not against freedom or healthy societies for the records, just saying that it isn't the same things. And secondly, libertarians aren't anarchists.
As any complex term "freedom" has many definitions. I prefer Spinoza's that it is a necessity of a conscious man. So it is a necessity which brings in the responsibility straight away. So the usage of the term "freedom" by libertarians is incorrect from the beginning the way I see the freedom. And from this point of viewing the regulation is required to tell freedom of anarchy. Can a proprietor of the company cut costs? For sure he can. Can he cut these costs on quality? Can he cut the costs by moving production facilities from Detroit to China? Debatable. But for sure the decisions of proprietors to cut costs on removing the industry from the city was irresponsible for the city and for its inhabitants. So in my viewpoint it was not a freedom and only in case of regulation that obliged proprietor to pay extra tax or xomething in case of costs cut would mean a freedom more than it happened in reality. So I agree with the statement. That with more rules we get more civilized and free society.
The OP attacks the strawman of zero regulation. Nobody is proposing that. Like selenium a (very limited) dose of regulation is necessary, but in excess it becomes very, very toxic. “If society has no or very little regulation, then it's anarchy, and becomes an idiocracy.” Taxcutter says: I completely disagree. In Jefferson’s day or during the Coolidge administration there was very little regulation on the economy. At neither time could the US have been described as either anarchy or idiocracy. “So when society becomes totally deregulated - it just causes idiocy and laziness to prevail over intelligence and hard work.” Taxcutter says: In practice the opposite is true. With no government distortion of the market, hard work, intelligence and common sense gains a huge advantage over those without these qualities. Andrew Carnegie came to America nearly penniless, but came here at a time of minimal government regulation. Through drive and market savvy, he became one of the wealthiest men in the nation. “Take a look at Detroit and any black ghetto…” Taxcutter says: Yes, let’s do so. In 1950 there was very little regulation in Detroit. African-Americans got union jobs in the car industry that paid as much as white workers got. African-Americans who had come north to get these jobs and escape the (Democrat-imposed) government regulations of Jim Crow were getting ahead. But beginning in the late 60s, regulations began strangling industries of every description. US manufacturers could not compete with less-regulated manufacturers oversea and US industry (now less competitive being bound up in regulations) atrophied. African-American and white worker hit the bricks. Add to it the counterproductive hand of city regulations (fostered by a Democrat-dominated city government) and the economy of Detroit collapsed. With economic collapse came a culture of dependency that has developed into virtual anarchy. “…healthy regulations- which encourages youth to be productive and moral citizens…” Taxcutter says: I don’t know of any federal or state regulations that fit that description. Yes, a certain amount of government regulation is necessary. The US passed beyond that point somewhere around 1934. If 80% of all regulations promulgated since 1934 were stricken from the books, the economy would perk up and no adverse effects could be found.
