Here's what I don't understand about gold. It ain't gonna be worth doodly if the end times come. You know what will? Fresh water. Salt. Prostitutes. That's why I have plans to store lots of drinking water in my salt dome which will also double as a brothel for discriminating gentlemen. I will not be paid in coin of any kind, but in staples and services.
Regulation is not all-or-nothing. It's just someone checking work. Like a teacher checking a student's homework. Like an editor checking a writer's paper. Like a scientists doing peer reviews and recreate experiments to make sure it truly works. It doesn't matter whether you feel the people doing the checking should be lenient or strict. In the end I'm certain everyone feel it's better for there to be someone to do some checking to make sure companies are straight with their consumers.
and who decides what is bad and what is good? Bad for whom? good for whom? A regulation that limits dumping carcinogens in your drinking water is bad for a business but good for you and your family.
I don't see the paradox there. It's also about the government not running or owning companies and industries. That's probably even more important.
The idea from gold bugs is that all this fiat currencies will be worthless and gold becomes the only "real" currency. I think it's nuts, but hey its making money in the meantime.
What constitutes "good regulation"? Better yet, how do you propose we "standardize" such a judgement? To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with your premise. Just pointing out a fundamental problem, one that libertarians (I don't know if you claim such a political ideology or not) consistently provide blanks stares when confronted with. I posit that one of the important roles of good regulation (see what I did there?) is to prevent companies and industries from running the government.
That's not true. Deregulation is simply the removal of regulation. What you're describing is "good deregulation" and tends to be in the eye of the beholder - every regulation out there had a reason for existing and probably has someone arguing it's a good thing.
I consider myself to be a shortcut for the due process of reasonable men; a freelance-judge and critic-at-large. But this "good regulation" question is why we are supposed to have a government of well intentioned actors, charged with the general welfare, with free speech, free press and good law and good science, not corporate sponsored advocacy..... carry on.
