[phs318u]

Your last paragreaph sounds contradictory to me. In order to "regulate conditions", the government must reserve the power to intervene should said conditions fail to meet regulatory minima. Failure to reserve such power automatically neuters any "regulation". There are only two distinct choices - no government power over these conditions and therefore no regulation (in effect, irrespective of contrary claims), or regulation (with government power to intervene). In the latter case there is broad scope for where the threshold for intervention is set and most discussion centers on this. But in all cases, the existence of such a threshold requires government power to intervene.

[stcredzero]

In order to "regulate conditions", the government must reserve the power to intervene should said conditions fail to meet regulatory minima.

Of course. Read the whole thread as if I think the government should reserve that power. My position is that the government should use such power as sparingly as possible.

There are only two distinct choices - no government power over these conditions and therefore no regulation

False. There is a "dial" here. The question is how much government should intervene. In that, there are far more than 2 choices.

[phs318u]

> My position is that the government should use such power as sparingly as possible.

Apologies. I misunderstood and it seems we agree on the fundamental principle that the government should have such power and disagree only on it's extent, as per my other reply to another comment of yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18870396

> False. There is a "dial" here.

Which is exactly what I go on to say in the rest of the sentence you quoted - "...there is broad scope for where the threshold for intervention is set"