| >>The data is called "history".
The US started with no financial regulation; we got regulations and regulatory agencies over time, mostly in response to problems. I've already addressed the weakness of this rationale, and provided multiple examples where even you might agree that institutional and social acceptance is not aligned with good policy. >>The fact that no devil-may-care marketplace has survived, and the fact that countries with successful financial marketplaces have all converged on similar approaches is as reasonable set of evidence that regulation has value to market participants. There is absolutely no evidence for your assertion. I present to you guilds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild#Fall_of_the_guilds >>As Ogilvie (2004) shows, the guilds negatively affected quality, skills, and innovation. Through what economists now call "rent-seeking" they imposed deadweight losses on the economy. Ogilvie says they generated no demonstrable positive externalities and notes that industry began to flourish only after the guilds faded away. Guilds persisted over the centuries because they redistributed resources to politically powerful merchants. On the other hand, Ogilvie agrees, guilds created "social capital" of shared norms, common information, mutual sanctions, and collective political action. This social capital benefited guild members, even as it hurt outsiders.[24] We're not in an age of enlightenment. It's entirely possible that the dominant social forces support regulations while said regulations do harm on the balance. >>It doesn't prove it, but for regulations that are popular with all sorts of market participants, it's excellent evidence. I strongly disagree. The opinion of the average person on a complex economic subject is about as reliable an indicator of truth as their opinion on the innocence or guilt of a person charged with a crime. With special interests involved, public opinion could easily be swayed. There's a reason we have a court of law with deliberations in the justice system. Opinion polls are not a credible barometer of the truth. >>Which I believe is often the case in the cryptocurrency/ICO space. For whatever reason, cryptocurrency advocates often value the "you're not my DAD" kind of freedom way more than they value success. I don't see why you mock this viewpoint. The government is not our dad. We have legal principles like the First Amendment, that says that "Congress shall make no law * abridging the freedom of speech", and it arose out of a philosophical belief in the inherent right of Man to his freedom. To mock it as if people should accept others dictating their personal life decisions seems totally irrational to me. Why would you not want people to be respected as adults, instead of being treated as children? How could you not see the danger of abandoning the principle of personal autonomy in voluntary and consensual interactions? There are so many slippery slopes that emerge as that principle is steadily eroded. >> and the concomitant notion that the rest of society should just follow their vision and values, never mind the human cost. The rest of society can stay out of cryptocurrency. The side wanting to create centralized gatekeepers are the ones that are the busybodies, sticking their nose where it doesn't belong, to control other people. |
You're addressing the wrong rationale. I'm saying that everything started out the way you suggest and none of those things survived.
> It's entirely possible that the dominant social forces support regulations while said regulations do harm on the balance.
It's entirely possible we're living in a simulation controlled by malicious aliens. Anything is possible. But when deciding how to organize our society, we don't have to give all possibilities equal credence.
> The opinion of the average person on a complex economic subject
Yes, but I'm not talking about average people. I'm talking about expert participants in the system, ones with differing interests. When chefs and restaurateurs and doctors and public health officials and eaters of restaurant food and consumer advocates all say, "Yes, we think some basic mandatory health regulations are a good way to run things" then it's a solid sign the regulations are not some sort of one-sided, exploitative thing like the guild system.
> There's a reason we have a court of law with deliberations in the justice system.
Sure. A justice system that time and time again accepts reasonable regulatory burdens in pursuit of broader shared benefit.
> I don't see why you mock this viewpoint. The government is not our dad.
Yes, exactly. The government is us. We the people. When we the people say, "Roads are great, but they would be even better if everybody going the same way drove on the same side of the road," that's government. Does this take away from the freedom of somebody to be independent of government constraint? Sure. Is that a worthwhile trade? Most think so. Is the fact that everybody with roads converges on either the drive-on-the-left or the drive-on-the-right solution and basically nobody minds a sign that this is not some irrational tyranny? Yes, definitely. Parallel evolution tells you something about utility.
I mock it not because there's anything wrong with wanting that kind of freedom, but because some people become fundamentalists about it. I am happy to mock fundamentalists of all stripes. Especially ones who entirely ignore the many other kind of freedom in favor of a fixation on a very particular kind.
> The rest of society can stay out of cryptocurrency.
This is something you are welcome to pursue in a private context, but not a public one. You want to build your own racetrack or lot and drive whichever way you want? Go crazy. But if you want to drive in the US, your options are narrower, because your choices no longer affect just you.