[csee]

They argue against regulations because:

- Regulations are often used as a tool of corruption and cronyism, e.g. regulation of housing construction entrenching landowner power.

- Regulations can block legitimate progress, e.g. the private antigen tests that were blocked throughout 2020.

- Regulations create complexity which acts as both a barrier to entry which creates monopolies, and as a hidden tax.

- Regulations are often theatre.

- Bad regulations are sticky; they don't sunset.

That's why I favor less regulations overall. But I don't favor no regulations. I still want regulations (or just "laws") that stop pollution, deceptive marketing, and so on.

[nybble41]

> I still want regulations (or just "laws") that stop pollution, deceptive marketing, and so on.

Not allowing pollution isn't regulation, it's enforcing property rights.

Not allowing deceptive marketing (fraudulent contracts) isn't regulation, it's enforcing property rights.

If you can't see the difference between regulations and property rights then yeah, opposition to regulations will seem a bit bizarre.

[mcv]

Deciding that these are property rights issues and enforcing them as such is itself a form of regulation. Property rights themselves are a basic form of regulation. Expanding property rights to more areas is regulation. Everything that regulate things in a way that protects and enforces people's rights, ensures people aren't being exploited, robbed, misled, etc, is a form of regulation.

[nybble41]

> Property rights themselves are a basic form of regulation.

In a general sense, perhaps, but not in the sense that people mean when they say that they're opposed to regulation. Context matters. In this conversation, "regulation" means a deviation from natural property rights, whether that involves directly infringing them, e.g. by attaching extra rules or penalties beyond simply respecting the equal rights of others, or granting artificial "property rights" which will necessarily infringe on others' natural ones.

> Expanding property rights to more areas is regulation.

"Expanding" the concept of property rights to areas where they don't naturally apply (like copyrights and patents) is definitely regulation, in the negative sense. But at that point you're not really talking about property rights any more.

[mcv]

Exactly. You don't want regulations merely for regulations' sake. Regulations need to be governed by a simple, transparent set of values, and enforce only those, but enforce them well and consistently, and keep the regulator accountable for how those values and regulations are enforced.

Blindly trusting regulators to know what's best is just as bad as blindly trusting corporations to know what's best.