Is Regulation of the Economy a Moral Issue?

[Brilliant]

This poll is created out of curiosity, and is aimed at both the many OT Libertarians and any other advocates of a laissez faire economy.

Which of the following is generally closest to your beliefs?

A free economy will be a healthy economy.
If left alone, the invisible hand of free market economics will always create a thriving and stable economy and distribute wealth appropriately to those that have earned it, and do so better and more efficiently than the Government. Instabilities in the free market are usually the fault of government regulation, and even if not, the market will eventually right itself if left alone.


It is more important that an economy be free than healthy.
The free market may not create a stable or thriving economy, and may end up grossly "unfair", but if so, it is still better than the economy being artificially manipulated by Government. Artificial Government regulation and redistribution of resources is immoral, and you liken it to stealing.


Government regulation is needed to keep an economy stable and healthy for the sake of its people.


Government should regulate the economy for the sake of fairness.
(e.g. Society has a moral obligation to care for its poor.)

If none of the above, please post why.

[Vanno]

None of the above, freer markets are better not because they are free but because emergent properties (like prices) are valuable coordinating information. Stability, is sort of a red herring, every Economy system has to cope with the fact that all Economies are constantly influx, processing new information. As such, they have multiple equilibrium points I'll expound on this later.

[chewbaccasdad]

You do know that the advent of interstellar travel, along with first contact with an alien race will render money obsolete, as mankind will be united with the common goal of exploring the stars, right?

Just like in motherfucking Star Trek and shit. Aight?

[Killuminati]

The way this question is phrased makes it sound like it is well-known fact that regulation is sound for the economy.

[Brilliant]

The way this question is phrased makes it sound like it is well-known fact that regulation is sound for the economy.

I suck at making polls. The poll options always look sound when I write them out, and then the results come out all fubared.

I'm just trying to figure out why free market supporters think a laissez faire economy is best:

A) Because it creates a better market. Despite its ups and downs, overall the economy will be in better shape for not having government regulation.

or B) Because Government regulation is "immoral". Taxing to redistribute resources to those that haven't earned them is like stealing. Forcing businesses to pay their employees what the government says to pay versus what their work is worth, or forcing businesses to hire a certain percentage of minorities, or telling a business what they can and cant put into an operating system is just plain wrong. Even if the market suffers with record unemployment, poverty, and starvation, and all the wealth is funneled to the top, it is still more important that the market be free.

[stalwart]

government regulation is immoral. it takes away a person's ability to live freely.

there are, however, regulations that have to be in place. government itself is a necessary evil. the founding fathers knew this.

we've gotten to the point where government is picking the winners and losers instead of a person's merit being the deciding factor, and that's completely immoral.

the idea that a government can "devalue" currency and has a right to any percentage of my earnings is a complete fraud.

i can agree with that.

[Silverhandorder]

None of the above, freer markets are better not because they are free but because emergent properties (like prices) are valuable coordinating information. Stability, is sort of a red herring, every Economy system has to cope with the fact that all Economies are constantly influx, processing new information. As such, they have multiple equilibrium points I'll expound on this later.

I tend to not think that healthy equates to stable.

[tallefred]

The free market isn't perfect, but really people, why are we asking the government to do anything more than the bare minimum? I think of the government as a retarded child, we can't help letting it do certain things that wouldn't get done without it, but anything which does not absolutely require that the government be involved should not be their responsibility. Everything the government does becomes bureaucratic and inefficient (see: education system USA).

I hate the government the same way I would be upset if I walked into the classroom and a retarded 8 year old was teaching advanced mathematics. There is a place for government in society, just like there are jobs that retards can do, but you don't give the retard a position of responsibility unless you have absolutely no choice in the matter. We can't have a privately run army, and someone has to fix the roads, so we have no choice but to assign these jobs to the retard and put up a ton of safeguards to keep it away from the jobs where it's not needed.

That's completely ignoring the whole issue of corruption (I include party politics in corruption). This is a massive issue in the U.S. government. But you can continue to hide your head in the sand and pretend that politicians are angels who would never, ever, throw the economy in the shitter so that they could look good to the black community or to make an extra buck.

Also, all you folks who belong to political parties are part of the problem. This isn't fucking football or Red vs. Blue. The 2 major parties are corrupt as hell, and tbh I don't trust the Independent parties to be any better if they get into office. The whole system is rotten and eventually it's going to collapse like every other empire.

[Justinian]

government regulation is immoral. it takes away a person's ability to live freely.

there are, however, regulations that have to be in place. government itself is a necessary evil. the founding fathers knew this.

we've gotten to the point where government is picking the winners and losers instead of a person's merit being the deciding factor, and that's completely immoral.

the idea that a government can "devalue" currency and has a right to any percentage of my earnings is a complete fraud.

i can agree with that.

the only regulation needed is the enforcement of contracts. In fact, one of the Founders' greatest mistakes was putting the safety of a voluntary contract (the Constitution) into the hands of the institution meant to protect it! That's why the Southerners agitated for the Bill of Rights (mostly the Second and Tenth Amendments - the fail-safes, as it were).

I picked the first choice. The definition of a healthy economy is one that is completely free of regulation and is held accountable by nobody but the people who comprise it.

[PainlessDeath]

the idea that a government..................has a right to any percentage of my earnings is a complete fraud.


It's not a right. It's a legal authority (or coercive authority if so inclined).

OP,

Truly free markets don't work. They need some regulation. Unfortunately, no one knows for sure what inputs will equal certain outputs.

[Milo Hobgoblin]

government regulation is immoral. it takes away a person's ability to live freely.

there are, however, regulations that have to be in place. government itself is a necessary evil. the founding fathers knew this.

we've gotten to the point where government is picking the winners and losers instead of a person's merit being the deciding factor, and that's completely immoral.

the idea that a government can "devalue" currency and has a right to any percentage of my earnings is a complete fraud.

i can agree with that.


unfortunately.. many of the people on ths forums have never owned a business or had any financial responsibility beyong paying their MMO bill and keeping their stocks of cup-o-noodles full.

minimal regulation is a must.. I almost think the feds removed many of the regulations required for borrowers just so the market would fail allowing them to swoop in and pseudo nationalize some of the industries.

[stalwart]

It's not a right. It's a legal authority (or coercive authority if so inclined).

OP,

Truly free markets don't work. They need some regulation. Unfortunately, no one knows for sure what inputs will equal certain outputs.

so you're not really disagreeing with what I said? i said there have to be a few regulations... and yes, i'll agree that no one really agrees on the necessary set.

however what we've done, instead of trying to pick the best set, we've just regulated everything.

[stalwart]

unfortunately.. many of the people on ths forums have never owned a business or had any financial responsibility beyong paying their MMO bill and keeping their stocks of cup-o-noodles full.

minimal regulation is a must.. I almost think the feds removed many of the regulations required for borrowers just so the market would fail allowing them to swoop in and pseudo nationalize some of the industries.

i'm in the process of starting my own "restaurant at home" business as something I do on the side (mostly because I enjoy cooking 5 star meals, and I'm good at it).

there are regulations and licenses for everything. the funny thing is that I already do it for the most part... wtf is a regulation or certification going to do except give someone a false sense of security about my service?

i got wtfpwned by the state when I mentioned I was going to serve wine and liquor with my meals. took me 5 steps back.

[PainlessDeath]

so you're not really disagreeing with what I said? i said there have to be a few regulations... and yes, i'll agree that no one really agrees on the necessary set.

however what we've done, instead of trying to pick the best set, we've just regulated everything.
I agree with the meat of what you said although I'm holding back on the "everything" part.

[stalwart]

I agree with the meat of what you said although I'm holding back on the "everything" part.

the only thing i said about "everything" was the "we regulate everything"

what do we not regulate?

[Killuminati]

what do we not regulate?

peeing in a bucket.

[PainlessDeath]

the only thing i said about "everything" was the "we regulate everything"

what do we not regulate?
heh I admit to not knowing everything so I can't know what I don't know :)

[stalwart]

peeing in a bucket.

you sure as fuck can't pee in a bucket where you want. and then you have to dispose of the piss according to the law (down the toilet or in your backyard), or you can get fined.

[MyFingID]

Voted for the first option. Government needs to regulate trade. That is keep trade open between foreign entities, and ensure fair practice. Insider trading, scams, trades upheld. That's it. It does not need to subsidize anything or have any real influence in the market whatsoever.

[Vanno]

I tend to not think that healthy equates to stable.

Yep. In Economics, stability refers to the fluctuation in the markets. The less fluctuations, the more stable an Economy is said to be. I however, believe less fluctuations might suggest price fixing, a limited/non-robust Economy, and other issues. In other words, any Economy that plugs along with nearly the same growth rate every year, probably has some fundamental problems.

[Vesavius]

No idea.

There has never beem a truly 'free economy' to judge, just as there as there has never been a true unfettered communist state.

They are all just theories that *might* work at this time.