| > Public markets are equity markets that any member of the public can participate in. Yes! > They cannot exist without regulation No! In fact, early crypto exchanges are examples of unregulated public markets. But we also know that this is incorrect because you can just imagine a world where the government doesn’t regulate these markets. The owner/agent problem you are describing can be solved without the use of government - you just find a different third party. > It is reasonable to be upset at the use of force by the state to protect big tech companies Sure but the criticism wasn’t “the State should stop big tech companies from doing bad things” it was: * The big tech companies are not private; they are public companies that rely on state force to maintain their monopolies. Just as an example, intellectual property laws rely on the state for enforcement.* Which is nonsense because being “public” and “licensed” isn’t relevant to the protection of the State here. > China is not, even though both appeal to the “will of the people” and both have elections. I lost track of what we were really discussing here but China does not hold elections in a way that resembles what we mean by an election. Chinese citizens don’t go to the voting booth, the appointment of the CCP ruler isn’t up to the public. |
Public markets need state intervention because the application of force is required.
The point regarding democracy is that you cannot call a 25 person tribe a democracy just because they vote. “What we mean by an election” is about diverse institutions of power such as multiple parties, independent media, freedom of political speech, etc.