On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Charlie Bell<char...@culturelist.org> wrote: > > On 18/07/2009, at 3:14 PM, John Williams wrote: >> >> You seem to have a more restrictive definition of freedom than I do. >> My definition of freedom of choice is to be able to choose as I like >> as long as I am not directly taking away someone else's freedom. > > ...and that's the point of regulation - to make sure the big operator > doesn't stiff the little guy's choice.
I can see why you might be emotional about that sort of thing, but the fact is that the example you cite is directly restricting the freedom of the person or people who you derogatorily refer to as "big operator". It also indirectly affects the choices of everyone else. Regulation is coercive, and is nearly the opposite of freedom of choice. You may believe the coercion is necessary, the ends justify the means perhaps, but that does not make it freedom of choice. It is restriction of freedom of choice in order to obtain what you believe to be a better end. > Frankly, I'm astonished you have the chutzpah to be banging on and on about > "the free market" and the evil of regulation when deregulation is the > largest reason for the current world recession. No chutzpah required, since I am convinced that the recession is largely the result of unforeseen consequences of imperfectly understood regulations and interactions between them, of people and businesses finding ways to game regulations, and of wrong-headed government bailouts of people and businesses who would have lost money in a free market which would disincentivize such behavior in the future, but instead the bailouts incentivize such things. > Regulations are not always a > bad thing. Perhaps not. But unfortunately, most are. _______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
