|
|
|
|
|
by nathanaldensr
1600 days ago
|
|
The phrase "regulation" implies that the regulators--the State--are ethical actors. They aren't. How many more examples of that do we need to see before people believe it? The dichotomy of "regulation" vs. "lack of regulation" is a false one. Neither work because too many humans are fundamentally unethical and non-trustworthy, leading to inevitable low-trust societies such as the one the West is experiencing right now. We need to reject globalism in favor of localism. Local government is fundamentally more accountable to their constituencies if for no other reason than the physical proximity. I can always leave my house, walk or drive a few miles, and protest at city hall. |
|
Why would it imply this? Regulation is a political object, not a moral one. Regulation can be good or bad (as evaluated by a moral system, dealer's choice) without collapsing in on itself.
Political systems thrive for reasons that are mostly orthogonal to their moral nature, chief among them being whether their individual institutions survive administrations and the people within them. Trust is a function of the perseverance of those institutions when they are also perceived as good; it has nothing to do with globalism or localism.