I think we've seen time and time again that self-regulation of the industry doesn't work and that businesses will gladly fuck over society if they can get away with it and make more money. Usually that behavior is even defended with saying "Well, it's not their responsibility to solve society's issues. They are there to make money."
Barring nationalization of an industry, heavy regulation and/or taxation/subsidizing are the only ways to reliably protect the interests of society. If some businesses get killed in the process, so be it.
»If some businesses get killed in the process, so be it.«
The problem with this attitude is that the rest of the world often doesn’t have these strict regulations and as result, businesses aren’t killed but just leaving the country.
If a business can't be profitable while treating employees, customers, and the environment well, then it going out of business or leaving is not a loss.
Option 1: “we won’t trade humans as slaves at all costs, even if it makes us less competitive in the global market - and we don’t hold that conviction about other things”
Option 2: “We won’t trade slaves - and if we find you trading slaves we will kill you. So we don’t have to worry about competing against slaves in the global marketplace.”
Option 3: “slavery is less efficient than having the same people as market participants - so I don’t consider giving up slaves to be less competitive”
Many more options, and mixtures of any or all of them.
It just shows that the whole point of "regulation is bad" blanket statement is an intellectually dishonest argument, as what most people actually mean is "regulations that I don't like are bad". In fact, the whole market vs state thing is very confused, markets are created by the state, something most serious economists specially economic historians will admit. It's no surprise that market driven capitalism has devoleped with the expansion of the reach and capacity of the state, and that weak states devolve into things more similar to feudalism than market utopia.
This sounds like you’re arguing against an invented boogyman.
For me and my experience, it’s reversed. Someone says some measured statement against a piece of regulation and someone shakes out of the woodwork mumbling something about some horrific thing like slavery.
Arguments of the structure:
“Aha, so you do like regulation, therefore you must like ALL regulation”
Or
“Oh, you oppose this piece of regulation, therefore you must want lord of the flies”
Or
“You only like regulation you like” (which is effectively a tautology)
People can oppose the burden of a body of regulation without opposing a government enforcing contract law.
And when someone says “regulation is bad” - a good faith interpretation of their statement is that they mean we have a large body of bad regulation, not that we should abolish the state and devolve into trading Monero for slaves.
... Wait, are you suggesting that no-one will want to sell clothes in Europe? Like, this regulation pretty much entirely impacts companies who sell clothes to consumers.
Is it? What is the proof for that?
I think we've seen time and time again that self-regulation of the industry doesn't work and that businesses will gladly fuck over society if they can get away with it and make more money. Usually that behavior is even defended with saying "Well, it's not their responsibility to solve society's issues. They are there to make money."
Barring nationalization of an industry, heavy regulation and/or taxation/subsidizing are the only ways to reliably protect the interests of society. If some businesses get killed in the process, so be it.
»If some businesses get killed in the process, so be it.«
The problem with this attitude is that the rest of the world often doesn’t have these strict regulations and as result, businesses aren’t killed but just leaving the country.
If a business can't be profitable while treating employees, customers, and the environment well, then it going out of business or leaving is not a loss.
And as a result you get monopolies like TooBigTech and you can't compete anyway.
Is that a justification for resuming slavery, child labour and dumping chemicals in our rivers?
Pretty sure you can oppose slavery and support what GP said without significant cognitive dissonance
Not really. It's a race to the bottom.
Many options.
Option 1: “we won’t trade humans as slaves at all costs, even if it makes us less competitive in the global market - and we don’t hold that conviction about other things”
Option 2: “We won’t trade slaves - and if we find you trading slaves we will kill you. So we don’t have to worry about competing against slaves in the global marketplace.”
Option 3: “slavery is less efficient than having the same people as market participants - so I don’t consider giving up slaves to be less competitive”
Many more options, and mixtures of any or all of them.
It just shows that the whole point of "regulation is bad" blanket statement is an intellectually dishonest argument, as what most people actually mean is "regulations that I don't like are bad". In fact, the whole market vs state thing is very confused, markets are created by the state, something most serious economists specially economic historians will admit. It's no surprise that market driven capitalism has devoleped with the expansion of the reach and capacity of the state, and that weak states devolve into things more similar to feudalism than market utopia.
This sounds like you’re arguing against an invented boogyman.
For me and my experience, it’s reversed. Someone says some measured statement against a piece of regulation and someone shakes out of the woodwork mumbling something about some horrific thing like slavery.
Arguments of the structure:
“Aha, so you do like regulation, therefore you must like ALL regulation”
Or
“Oh, you oppose this piece of regulation, therefore you must want lord of the flies”
Or
“You only like regulation you like” (which is effectively a tautology)
People can oppose the burden of a body of regulation without opposing a government enforcing contract law.
And when someone says “regulation is bad” - a good faith interpretation of their statement is that they mean we have a large body of bad regulation, not that we should abolish the state and devolve into trading Monero for slaves.
... Wait, are you suggesting that no-one will want to sell clothes in Europe? Like, this regulation pretty much entirely impacts companies who sell clothes to consumers.