[jjoonathan]

> Currently government is redistributing income upward by economic prohibitions (regulatory barriers)

Forgive me for the double post, but part of a sibling comment of mine is especially relevant here:

> I'm regularly floored by people's ability to talk about network effects, economies of scale, information asymmetries, moats, winner-takes-all games, and mergers/acquisitions with one breath -- all of which are non-regulatory market forces that suppress competition and innovation -- and then with the next breath assert that deregulation is the most straightforward way to spur innovation and competition.

I agree that eliminating rents should be a (if not the) primary goal of government, but I don't agree that eliminating regulation is synonymous.

[baddox]

Why is that contradictory? It only seems contradictory if you expect government regulations to reliably (i.e. on net) decrease market inefficiencies. That is certain a plausible argument, but it needs to be made rather than just assumed.

[aminok]

All regulations, except on natural resources like land, should be eliminated in my opinion, as they are forceful interventions against people exercising their legitimate right to freely contract and utilise their own private property. In industries where network effects emerge, the government should fund open-source protocols that can compete with privately owned options. For example, applications built on a distributed consensus public blockchain (e.g. Ethereum) could be competitive with many existing centralized services.

[eli_gottlieb]

>All regulations, except on natural resources like land, should be eliminated in my opinion, as they are forceful interventions against people exercising their legitimate right to freely contract and utilise their own private property.

That's a sickening utopian vision, but luckily we live in the real world.

[a_t48]

Should I have the right to force someone into slavery\indentured servitude if they inadvertently sign their rights away?

[none_for_me_thx]

A valid contract requires consideration. It also requires an understanding, by both parties, of the terms of the contract so, no you couldn't _force_ someone into _slavery_ if they _inadvertently_ blah blah blah. I'd say none of those words make sense in context of a valid contract.