[thedataslinger]

Wait, wait, wait--you're saying that we need to solve issues like regulatory capture through legislation... so that we can have a market without governmental interference (aka a "free market")? Huh?

You can't on the one hand tout the "free market", while on the other complain that we don't have the "right" kind of governmental interference.

Even if you could square that circle, it still sounds disingenuous to argue that we could have the most efficient system if only we were to eliminate _thing that said system actively encourages_. The failure is baked into the game, my friend.

[Cederfjard]

I don’t think that reasoning is necessarily unsound. For there to be regulatory capture, there needs to be regulation. The legislation proposed could be to remove or minimize that regulation, and thus limit the ”hooks” whereby to capture it with. Replacing ”governmental interference” with ”less governmental interference”, not ”different governmental interference”.

I don’t take such a libertarian view myself, by the way. Just pointing out that I don’t think you can pick apart the argument of the person you replied to in that way.