You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Libertarianism and Mining GORP (Trail Mix) [about to hit 9k follower!!!]
" too many regulations kill the competition, too little regulations kill the consumer."
Catchy! I like it. However it leaves the correct amount of regulation unspecified, so it's no more than criticism. It'd be nice to have some universal truth we could agree on.
We won't all agree, for various reasons.
That is the hard part. How much is enough regulation? And How de we reach that agreement?
To me, enough regulations would have to have this objectives:
Allow a Fair market
Prohibit actions that do enviromental damage
Allow people to have acess to Basic needs at minimum possible price (food, water, education, housing)
Criminal laws that cover damage to others(self damaging people May need help, but It is their choice to do whatever they want with their body)
If there is no fairness in the game It cant be Just.
I disagree that regulations should take the form you posit.
I am more inclined to craft intrapersonal agreements, which can be employed to create broad alliances of persons based on aligned principles. This potentiates communities of purely voluntary integrants that can act per those principles to counter their enemies.
Specifying laws which impose tyrannical control on hapless sheep isn't the way to attain justice.
Further, we see that the USA publishes about ~700 new regulations EVERY DAY. It is physically impossible for such regulations to specify every particular variable, and far more impossible for individuals to even be aware of these regulations, much less be capable of conforming to them.
Since the law specifies that ignorance of the law is no defense, then the system is creating of every single person subject to them criminals, and the penal industrial complex can simply pick those it seeks to prey upon from the total population arbitrarily - in fact, it cannot justly and fairly enforce these regulations.
It is physically impossible.
What is possible, and just, is for autonomous people to craft interpersonal agreements based on their principles, and to defend their interests against those that oppose them.
Nothing will be perfect, but freedom is better than despotism.
You do have a point, and you are talking about contracts, wich is a good way to establish rules between two or more parts.
But still, some rules cant be put in contract or agreement form. Especially when some agreement affect people that arent directly involved in them.
But yeah, no doubt there is to many regulations with personal agendas involved.
What is needed is to reduce them to a minimum. The big question is How.
I actually agree with this statement, but point out I did not propose rules be specified, but principles by which alliances could form. Clearly those alliances would propose means of supporting their principles, and opposing their enemies, and these could be considered rules.
I submit that my proposal does reduce regulations and the corruption they potentiate to a minimum, in fact eliminating them.
Do please provide examples of how this would not work, for my edification. I can learn nothing unless others teach me what they know, and I do not.
Phrasing this way i understood better, and yes, i does make sense, and can work as long as all parts have a consensus over that.
But how would we reach consensus in other way than having written and enforced rules that everyone on the community agree with?
Would your proposal then be an unwritten social contract?
I don't think consensus is attainable. I believe that, for the foreseeable future, at least, conflict and tension between opposition parties is inevitable.
I propose no unwritten contracts, but only interpersonal agreements to which individuals set their hands, and can withdraw from at their sole option.
Unwritten social contracts are, I think, addressed by this proposal, as the principles of most folks recognize such, and their agreements would reflect their understandings.
You and I could agree on much. We would continue to disagree on other things, but the areas of agreement could be matters where we could work together, until our work ran up against one or the other's conflicting principles, at which point we could affably disagree, limiting our communal effort.
If those limitations proved to too limit the effection of our purposes, we could also choose to change our minds, and undertake a broader range of agreement.